User login
PTSD can persist in cancer survivors
Cancer patients may experience lasting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a study published in the journal Cancer.
Approximately one-fifth of patients involved in the study experienced PTSD several months after their cancer diagnosis, and roughly a third of these patients continued to live with PTSD 4 years later.
Researchers say these findings highlight the need for early identification, careful monitoring, and treatment of PTSD in cancer survivors.
Caryn Mei Hsien Chan, PhD, of the National University of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur, and her colleagues conducted this research.
The study included 469 adults with various cancers who were within 1 month of cancer diagnosis at enrollment.
Patients who had significant psychological distress (defined as a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total cutoff score of 16 or higher) underwent
testing for PTSD at 6 months of follow-up. All patients were tested for PTSD at 4 years of follow-up (regardless of their Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score).
The incidence of PTSD was 21.7% at 6 months and 6.1% at 4 years. Although overall rates of PTSD decreased with time, roughly one-third of patients initially diagnosed with PTSD were found to have persistent or worsening symptoms 4 years later.
“Many cancer patients believe they need to adopt a ‘warrior mentality’ and remain positive and optimistic from diagnosis through treatment to stand a better chance of beating their cancer,” Dr Chan said.
“To these patients, seeking help for the emotional issues they face is akin to admitting weakness. There needs to be greater awareness that there is nothing wrong with getting help to manage the emotional upheaval—particularly depression, anxiety, and PTSD—post-cancer.”
Dr Chan also stressed that many patients live in fear that their cancer may come back, and they may think the cancer has returned with every lump or bump, pain or ache, fatigue or fever.
In addition, cancer survivors might skip visits to their oncologists or other physicians to avoid triggering memories of their past cancer experience. This can lead to delays in seeking help for new symptoms or even refusal of treatment for unrelated conditions.
“We need psychological evaluation and support services for patients with cancer at an initial stage and at continued follows-up because psychological well-being and mental health—and by extension, quality of life—are just as important as physical health,” Dr Chan noted. 
Cancer patients may experience lasting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a study published in the journal Cancer.
Approximately one-fifth of patients involved in the study experienced PTSD several months after their cancer diagnosis, and roughly a third of these patients continued to live with PTSD 4 years later.
Researchers say these findings highlight the need for early identification, careful monitoring, and treatment of PTSD in cancer survivors.
Caryn Mei Hsien Chan, PhD, of the National University of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur, and her colleagues conducted this research.
The study included 469 adults with various cancers who were within 1 month of cancer diagnosis at enrollment.
Patients who had significant psychological distress (defined as a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total cutoff score of 16 or higher) underwent
testing for PTSD at 6 months of follow-up. All patients were tested for PTSD at 4 years of follow-up (regardless of their Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score).
The incidence of PTSD was 21.7% at 6 months and 6.1% at 4 years. Although overall rates of PTSD decreased with time, roughly one-third of patients initially diagnosed with PTSD were found to have persistent or worsening symptoms 4 years later.
“Many cancer patients believe they need to adopt a ‘warrior mentality’ and remain positive and optimistic from diagnosis through treatment to stand a better chance of beating their cancer,” Dr Chan said.
“To these patients, seeking help for the emotional issues they face is akin to admitting weakness. There needs to be greater awareness that there is nothing wrong with getting help to manage the emotional upheaval—particularly depression, anxiety, and PTSD—post-cancer.”
Dr Chan also stressed that many patients live in fear that their cancer may come back, and they may think the cancer has returned with every lump or bump, pain or ache, fatigue or fever.
In addition, cancer survivors might skip visits to their oncologists or other physicians to avoid triggering memories of their past cancer experience. This can lead to delays in seeking help for new symptoms or even refusal of treatment for unrelated conditions.
“We need psychological evaluation and support services for patients with cancer at an initial stage and at continued follows-up because psychological well-being and mental health—and by extension, quality of life—are just as important as physical health,” Dr Chan noted.
Cancer patients may experience lasting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a study published in the journal Cancer.
Approximately one-fifth of patients involved in the study experienced PTSD several months after their cancer diagnosis, and roughly a third of these patients continued to live with PTSD 4 years later.
Researchers say these findings highlight the need for early identification, careful monitoring, and treatment of PTSD in cancer survivors.
Caryn Mei Hsien Chan, PhD, of the National University of Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur, and her colleagues conducted this research.
The study included 469 adults with various cancers who were within 1 month of cancer diagnosis at enrollment.
Patients who had significant psychological distress (defined as a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale total cutoff score of 16 or higher) underwent
testing for PTSD at 6 months of follow-up. All patients were tested for PTSD at 4 years of follow-up (regardless of their Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score).
The incidence of PTSD was 21.7% at 6 months and 6.1% at 4 years. Although overall rates of PTSD decreased with time, roughly one-third of patients initially diagnosed with PTSD were found to have persistent or worsening symptoms 4 years later.
“Many cancer patients believe they need to adopt a ‘warrior mentality’ and remain positive and optimistic from diagnosis through treatment to stand a better chance of beating their cancer,” Dr Chan said.
“To these patients, seeking help for the emotional issues they face is akin to admitting weakness. There needs to be greater awareness that there is nothing wrong with getting help to manage the emotional upheaval—particularly depression, anxiety, and PTSD—post-cancer.”
Dr Chan also stressed that many patients live in fear that their cancer may come back, and they may think the cancer has returned with every lump or bump, pain or ache, fatigue or fever.
In addition, cancer survivors might skip visits to their oncologists or other physicians to avoid triggering memories of their past cancer experience. This can lead to delays in seeking help for new symptoms or even refusal of treatment for unrelated conditions.
“We need psychological evaluation and support services for patients with cancer at an initial stage and at continued follows-up because psychological well-being and mental health—and by extension, quality of life—are just as important as physical health,” Dr Chan noted.
CD22 CAR activity in B-ALL highlights promise of multispecific CARs
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – A new CD22-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) demonstrated clinical activity in a phase 1 study of adults and children with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), including several who were previously treated with CD19-directed immunotherapy.
In 21 children and adults with B-ALL who were treated with the CD22 CAR, dose-dependent antileukemic activity was observed; complete remission occurred in 11 of 15 (73%) who received bioactive doses (at least 1 x 106 CD22 CAR T-cells per kg of body weight), including 5 of 5 patients with CD19dim or CD19neg B-ALL, Terry J. Fry, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues reported in Nature Medicine (2017 Nov 20. doi: 10.1038.nm.4441).
This study is the first to establish the clinical activity of a CD22 CAR in B-ALL. The investigators developed the CAR in an effort to counter the resistance sometimes seen in patients who receive CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. CD22 is also expressed in most B-ALL cases – and usually is retained following CD19 loss, they explained.
The findings, when considered in light of efficacy demonstrated in leukemia that is resistant to anti-CD19 immunotherapy, highlights the potential for – and importance of – developing multispecific CARs, Crystal L. Mackall, MD, the senior author of the study, said during an update on CAR T-cell research at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“All in all, once we got to the dose that was appropriate ... this CAR had really impressive activity,” said Dr. Mackall, director of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Stanford (Calif.) University. “In some patients, this was all the patient needed for a prolonged disease-free interval.”
Three patients had ongoing responses, at 21 months, 9 months, and 6 months, she said. There was a high rate of relapse among the study participants, but all patients had previously received at least one bone marrow transplant, and 17 had received CD19-based immunotherapy.
“But nonetheless, the interrogation of these relapses was really essential to understand more about the Achilles heels of these CAR T-cells,” she said. “What we saw is that it was all about the antigen.”
Unlike CD19, which tends to disappear after relapse, CD22-expressing tumors that relapse tend to come back with “simply lower expression of CD22,” she said. The CD22 CAR was unable to control the CD22lo leukemias. This is not unique to the CD22 CAR, she said.
“Every CAR we’ve looked at so far has this exquisite dependence on antigen density for functionality,” she explained, noting that heterogeneity in antigen expression will pose major challenges for the development of therapies, and “maybe has been one of the main reasons we haven’t yet seen the effectiveness of CAR T-cells in solid tumors that we have for hematological malignancies where we’ve typically had targets that are expressed homogenously and at high levels.”
“So we believe very strongly that multispecific CARS are going to be essential for progress, especially as we move into solid tumors,” she added.
Early attempts at developing multispecific CARS suggest that coadministration is not ideal, but two other approaches – coexpression using two vectors or a bicistronic vector, or by creation of a bivalent-bispecific CAR (also known as a tandem CAR) – are both still on the table, she said.
Two clinical first-in-human trials evaluating a CD19/22-bispecific CAR (one in children and one in adults) for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies are underway at Stanford.
“We predict that this is going to be the beginning of a wave of bispecific, trispecific, and maybe even quad CARs,” she said. “There’s a lot of work to do, but this is an area that’s going to be very active in the coming years.”
Dr. Mackall has received consulting fees from Adaptimmune, GSK, Roche, Unum Therapeutics, and Vore Pharmaceuticals; has conducted research for Bluebird Bio; and has ownership interest from Juno Therapeutics.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – A new CD22-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) demonstrated clinical activity in a phase 1 study of adults and children with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), including several who were previously treated with CD19-directed immunotherapy.
In 21 children and adults with B-ALL who were treated with the CD22 CAR, dose-dependent antileukemic activity was observed; complete remission occurred in 11 of 15 (73%) who received bioactive doses (at least 1 x 106 CD22 CAR T-cells per kg of body weight), including 5 of 5 patients with CD19dim or CD19neg B-ALL, Terry J. Fry, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues reported in Nature Medicine (2017 Nov 20. doi: 10.1038.nm.4441).
This study is the first to establish the clinical activity of a CD22 CAR in B-ALL. The investigators developed the CAR in an effort to counter the resistance sometimes seen in patients who receive CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. CD22 is also expressed in most B-ALL cases – and usually is retained following CD19 loss, they explained.
The findings, when considered in light of efficacy demonstrated in leukemia that is resistant to anti-CD19 immunotherapy, highlights the potential for – and importance of – developing multispecific CARs, Crystal L. Mackall, MD, the senior author of the study, said during an update on CAR T-cell research at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“All in all, once we got to the dose that was appropriate ... this CAR had really impressive activity,” said Dr. Mackall, director of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Stanford (Calif.) University. “In some patients, this was all the patient needed for a prolonged disease-free interval.”
Three patients had ongoing responses, at 21 months, 9 months, and 6 months, she said. There was a high rate of relapse among the study participants, but all patients had previously received at least one bone marrow transplant, and 17 had received CD19-based immunotherapy.
“But nonetheless, the interrogation of these relapses was really essential to understand more about the Achilles heels of these CAR T-cells,” she said. “What we saw is that it was all about the antigen.”
Unlike CD19, which tends to disappear after relapse, CD22-expressing tumors that relapse tend to come back with “simply lower expression of CD22,” she said. The CD22 CAR was unable to control the CD22lo leukemias. This is not unique to the CD22 CAR, she said.
“Every CAR we’ve looked at so far has this exquisite dependence on antigen density for functionality,” she explained, noting that heterogeneity in antigen expression will pose major challenges for the development of therapies, and “maybe has been one of the main reasons we haven’t yet seen the effectiveness of CAR T-cells in solid tumors that we have for hematological malignancies where we’ve typically had targets that are expressed homogenously and at high levels.”
“So we believe very strongly that multispecific CARS are going to be essential for progress, especially as we move into solid tumors,” she added.
Early attempts at developing multispecific CARS suggest that coadministration is not ideal, but two other approaches – coexpression using two vectors or a bicistronic vector, or by creation of a bivalent-bispecific CAR (also known as a tandem CAR) – are both still on the table, she said.
Two clinical first-in-human trials evaluating a CD19/22-bispecific CAR (one in children and one in adults) for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies are underway at Stanford.
“We predict that this is going to be the beginning of a wave of bispecific, trispecific, and maybe even quad CARs,” she said. “There’s a lot of work to do, but this is an area that’s going to be very active in the coming years.”
Dr. Mackall has received consulting fees from Adaptimmune, GSK, Roche, Unum Therapeutics, and Vore Pharmaceuticals; has conducted research for Bluebird Bio; and has ownership interest from Juno Therapeutics.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – A new CD22-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) demonstrated clinical activity in a phase 1 study of adults and children with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), including several who were previously treated with CD19-directed immunotherapy.
In 21 children and adults with B-ALL who were treated with the CD22 CAR, dose-dependent antileukemic activity was observed; complete remission occurred in 11 of 15 (73%) who received bioactive doses (at least 1 x 106 CD22 CAR T-cells per kg of body weight), including 5 of 5 patients with CD19dim or CD19neg B-ALL, Terry J. Fry, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., and colleagues reported in Nature Medicine (2017 Nov 20. doi: 10.1038.nm.4441).
This study is the first to establish the clinical activity of a CD22 CAR in B-ALL. The investigators developed the CAR in an effort to counter the resistance sometimes seen in patients who receive CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. CD22 is also expressed in most B-ALL cases – and usually is retained following CD19 loss, they explained.
The findings, when considered in light of efficacy demonstrated in leukemia that is resistant to anti-CD19 immunotherapy, highlights the potential for – and importance of – developing multispecific CARs, Crystal L. Mackall, MD, the senior author of the study, said during an update on CAR T-cell research at the annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer.
“All in all, once we got to the dose that was appropriate ... this CAR had really impressive activity,” said Dr. Mackall, director of the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy at Stanford (Calif.) University. “In some patients, this was all the patient needed for a prolonged disease-free interval.”
Three patients had ongoing responses, at 21 months, 9 months, and 6 months, she said. There was a high rate of relapse among the study participants, but all patients had previously received at least one bone marrow transplant, and 17 had received CD19-based immunotherapy.
“But nonetheless, the interrogation of these relapses was really essential to understand more about the Achilles heels of these CAR T-cells,” she said. “What we saw is that it was all about the antigen.”
Unlike CD19, which tends to disappear after relapse, CD22-expressing tumors that relapse tend to come back with “simply lower expression of CD22,” she said. The CD22 CAR was unable to control the CD22lo leukemias. This is not unique to the CD22 CAR, she said.
“Every CAR we’ve looked at so far has this exquisite dependence on antigen density for functionality,” she explained, noting that heterogeneity in antigen expression will pose major challenges for the development of therapies, and “maybe has been one of the main reasons we haven’t yet seen the effectiveness of CAR T-cells in solid tumors that we have for hematological malignancies where we’ve typically had targets that are expressed homogenously and at high levels.”
“So we believe very strongly that multispecific CARS are going to be essential for progress, especially as we move into solid tumors,” she added.
Early attempts at developing multispecific CARS suggest that coadministration is not ideal, but two other approaches – coexpression using two vectors or a bicistronic vector, or by creation of a bivalent-bispecific CAR (also known as a tandem CAR) – are both still on the table, she said.
Two clinical first-in-human trials evaluating a CD19/22-bispecific CAR (one in children and one in adults) for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies are underway at Stanford.
“We predict that this is going to be the beginning of a wave of bispecific, trispecific, and maybe even quad CARs,” she said. “There’s a lot of work to do, but this is an area that’s going to be very active in the coming years.”
Dr. Mackall has received consulting fees from Adaptimmune, GSK, Roche, Unum Therapeutics, and Vore Pharmaceuticals; has conducted research for Bluebird Bio; and has ownership interest from Juno Therapeutics.
AT SITC 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Complete remission occurred in 73% of patients who received bioactive doses of the CD22 CAR.
Data source: A phase 1 study of 21 patients.
Disclosures: Dr. Mackall has received consulting fees from Adaptimmune, GSK, Roche, Unum Therapeutics, and Vore Pharmaceuticals; has conducted research for Bluebird Bio; and has ownership interest from Juno Therapeutics.
Cyclophosphamide after transplant reduced GVHD in myeloma patients
Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide may help decrease the rate of nonrelapse mortality and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients who have undergone allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation, according to new findings published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
Even though it is a potentially curative option for patients with poor-risk hematologic malignancies, allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation (alloBMT) has not been commonly used in multiple myeloma because of its association with high nonrelapse mortality and high relapse rates. However, the use of post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) in this study led to low rates of both acute and chronic GVHD, which translated to low rates of nonrelapse mortality and maintenance of long-term remissions in a subset of patients with multiple myeloma treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
“The favorable toxicity profile of alloBMT using PTCy in patients with MM offers the potential to further explore the use of post-transplantation strategies to improve disease control,” wrote Nilanjan Ghosh, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., and his colleagues.
The researchers examined outcomes of 39 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent bone marrow or peripheral blood alloBMT from HLA-matched related/unrelated or haploidentical related donors after either myeloablative or nonmyeloablative conditioning.
Patients who underwent myeloablative conditioning received PTCy 50 mg/kg per day (given intravenously on days 3 and 4 after alloBMT) as GVHD prophylaxis, while those who received nonmyeloablative conditioning received PTCy (same dose and schedule) and additional immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil 15 mg/kg (orally two to three times daily, up to 1,000 mg/dose on days 4-35 after transplantation).
At a median follow-up of 10.3 years following alloBMT, 23% of the cohort remained alive and without any evidence of disease. The median overall survival was 4.4 years. The 5-year survival probability was 49% (95% confidence interval, 32%-67%) and 10-year survival probability was 43% (95% CI, 29%-62%).
Following transplantation, 10 (26%) patients achieved a complete response, 8 (21%) had a very good partial response, 6 (15%) had a partial response, and 15 (38%) had progressive disease, the investigators reported (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017 Nov;23[11]:1903-9).
Among the 36 patients with evidence of donor engraftment, the cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 and grade 3 and 4 acute GVHD were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.25-0.57) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.16), respectively. For chronic GVHD, the cumulative incidence was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.02-0.23), and the median time to development was 109 days after alloBMT.
The median progression-free survival was 12 months (95% CI, 7.6-40), and the estimated cumulative incidence of relapse was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.3-0.62) at 1 year and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.41-0.72) at 2 years.
In univariate analysis, achievement of a complete response following alloBMT correlated with overall survival. Factors such as the intensity of the alloBMT conditioning regimen, stem cell source, age, and disease response before alloBMT did not appear to impact overall survival.
“Given the low incidence of GVHD and [nonrelapse mortality] in our study, it is possible that post-transplantation maintenance therapies can be used to improve diseases control,” Dr. Ghosh and his associates wrote. “Emerging data suggest that many anticancer agents may be more active after alloBMT than before transplantation.”
The study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide may help decrease the rate of nonrelapse mortality and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients who have undergone allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation, according to new findings published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
Even though it is a potentially curative option for patients with poor-risk hematologic malignancies, allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation (alloBMT) has not been commonly used in multiple myeloma because of its association with high nonrelapse mortality and high relapse rates. However, the use of post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) in this study led to low rates of both acute and chronic GVHD, which translated to low rates of nonrelapse mortality and maintenance of long-term remissions in a subset of patients with multiple myeloma treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
“The favorable toxicity profile of alloBMT using PTCy in patients with MM offers the potential to further explore the use of post-transplantation strategies to improve disease control,” wrote Nilanjan Ghosh, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., and his colleagues.
The researchers examined outcomes of 39 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent bone marrow or peripheral blood alloBMT from HLA-matched related/unrelated or haploidentical related donors after either myeloablative or nonmyeloablative conditioning.
Patients who underwent myeloablative conditioning received PTCy 50 mg/kg per day (given intravenously on days 3 and 4 after alloBMT) as GVHD prophylaxis, while those who received nonmyeloablative conditioning received PTCy (same dose and schedule) and additional immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil 15 mg/kg (orally two to three times daily, up to 1,000 mg/dose on days 4-35 after transplantation).
At a median follow-up of 10.3 years following alloBMT, 23% of the cohort remained alive and without any evidence of disease. The median overall survival was 4.4 years. The 5-year survival probability was 49% (95% confidence interval, 32%-67%) and 10-year survival probability was 43% (95% CI, 29%-62%).
Following transplantation, 10 (26%) patients achieved a complete response, 8 (21%) had a very good partial response, 6 (15%) had a partial response, and 15 (38%) had progressive disease, the investigators reported (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017 Nov;23[11]:1903-9).
Among the 36 patients with evidence of donor engraftment, the cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 and grade 3 and 4 acute GVHD were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.25-0.57) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.16), respectively. For chronic GVHD, the cumulative incidence was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.02-0.23), and the median time to development was 109 days after alloBMT.
The median progression-free survival was 12 months (95% CI, 7.6-40), and the estimated cumulative incidence of relapse was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.3-0.62) at 1 year and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.41-0.72) at 2 years.
In univariate analysis, achievement of a complete response following alloBMT correlated with overall survival. Factors such as the intensity of the alloBMT conditioning regimen, stem cell source, age, and disease response before alloBMT did not appear to impact overall survival.
“Given the low incidence of GVHD and [nonrelapse mortality] in our study, it is possible that post-transplantation maintenance therapies can be used to improve diseases control,” Dr. Ghosh and his associates wrote. “Emerging data suggest that many anticancer agents may be more active after alloBMT than before transplantation.”
The study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide may help decrease the rate of nonrelapse mortality and graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in patients who have undergone allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation, according to new findings published in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.
Even though it is a potentially curative option for patients with poor-risk hematologic malignancies, allogeneic blood or marrow transplantation (alloBMT) has not been commonly used in multiple myeloma because of its association with high nonrelapse mortality and high relapse rates. However, the use of post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) in this study led to low rates of both acute and chronic GVHD, which translated to low rates of nonrelapse mortality and maintenance of long-term remissions in a subset of patients with multiple myeloma treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.
“The favorable toxicity profile of alloBMT using PTCy in patients with MM offers the potential to further explore the use of post-transplantation strategies to improve disease control,” wrote Nilanjan Ghosh, MD, of the Levine Cancer Institute, Charlotte, N.C., and his colleagues.
The researchers examined outcomes of 39 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent bone marrow or peripheral blood alloBMT from HLA-matched related/unrelated or haploidentical related donors after either myeloablative or nonmyeloablative conditioning.
Patients who underwent myeloablative conditioning received PTCy 50 mg/kg per day (given intravenously on days 3 and 4 after alloBMT) as GVHD prophylaxis, while those who received nonmyeloablative conditioning received PTCy (same dose and schedule) and additional immunosuppression with mycophenolate mofetil 15 mg/kg (orally two to three times daily, up to 1,000 mg/dose on days 4-35 after transplantation).
At a median follow-up of 10.3 years following alloBMT, 23% of the cohort remained alive and without any evidence of disease. The median overall survival was 4.4 years. The 5-year survival probability was 49% (95% confidence interval, 32%-67%) and 10-year survival probability was 43% (95% CI, 29%-62%).
Following transplantation, 10 (26%) patients achieved a complete response, 8 (21%) had a very good partial response, 6 (15%) had a partial response, and 15 (38%) had progressive disease, the investigators reported (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017 Nov;23[11]:1903-9).
Among the 36 patients with evidence of donor engraftment, the cumulative incidences of grade 2-4 and grade 3 and 4 acute GVHD were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.25-0.57) and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.16), respectively. For chronic GVHD, the cumulative incidence was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.02-0.23), and the median time to development was 109 days after alloBMT.
The median progression-free survival was 12 months (95% CI, 7.6-40), and the estimated cumulative incidence of relapse was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.3-0.62) at 1 year and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.41-0.72) at 2 years.
In univariate analysis, achievement of a complete response following alloBMT correlated with overall survival. Factors such as the intensity of the alloBMT conditioning regimen, stem cell source, age, and disease response before alloBMT did not appear to impact overall survival.
“Given the low incidence of GVHD and [nonrelapse mortality] in our study, it is possible that post-transplantation maintenance therapies can be used to improve diseases control,” Dr. Ghosh and his associates wrote. “Emerging data suggest that many anticancer agents may be more active after alloBMT than before transplantation.”
The study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Key clinical point:
Major finding: At 10.3 years following alloBMT, 16 of 39 (23%) of patients were alive and free of disease. Median overall survival was 4.4 years.
Data source: A single-institution series involving 39 patients with multiple myeloma who underwent alloBMT and received post-transplantation cyclophosphamide.
Disclosures: The study was funded in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
FDA approves obinutuzumab for follicular lymphoma
The Food and Drug Administration has approved obinutuzumab in combination with chemotherapy, followed by obinutuzumab alone in those who responded, for people with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma (stage II bulky, III or IV).
The most common adverse events associated with obinutuzumab were infusion reactions, low white blood cell count, upper respiratory tract infection, cough, constipation, and diarrhea. The most common significant adverse events are low white blood cell count, low white blood cell count with fever, and low platelet count.
Obinutuzumab is marketed as Gazyva by Genentech.
“Today’s Gazyva approval is an important advance for the thousands of people diagnosed each year with follicular lymphoma who hope to delay disease progression for as long as possible,” said Sarah Horning, MD, chief medical officer and head of global product development at Genentech, in the company press release.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved obinutuzumab in combination with chemotherapy, followed by obinutuzumab alone in those who responded, for people with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma (stage II bulky, III or IV).
The most common adverse events associated with obinutuzumab were infusion reactions, low white blood cell count, upper respiratory tract infection, cough, constipation, and diarrhea. The most common significant adverse events are low white blood cell count, low white blood cell count with fever, and low platelet count.
Obinutuzumab is marketed as Gazyva by Genentech.
“Today’s Gazyva approval is an important advance for the thousands of people diagnosed each year with follicular lymphoma who hope to delay disease progression for as long as possible,” said Sarah Horning, MD, chief medical officer and head of global product development at Genentech, in the company press release.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved obinutuzumab in combination with chemotherapy, followed by obinutuzumab alone in those who responded, for people with previously untreated advanced follicular lymphoma (stage II bulky, III or IV).
The most common adverse events associated with obinutuzumab were infusion reactions, low white blood cell count, upper respiratory tract infection, cough, constipation, and diarrhea. The most common significant adverse events are low white blood cell count, low white blood cell count with fever, and low platelet count.
Obinutuzumab is marketed as Gazyva by Genentech.
“Today’s Gazyva approval is an important advance for the thousands of people diagnosed each year with follicular lymphoma who hope to delay disease progression for as long as possible,” said Sarah Horning, MD, chief medical officer and head of global product development at Genentech, in the company press release.
FDA expands approval of obinutuzumab
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approved use of obinutuzumab (Gazyva®).
The drug is now approved for use in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) that is advanced (stage II bulky, stage III, or stage IV) .
In patients who respond to this treatment, obinutuzumab monotherapy can be given as maintenance.
The FDA granted this new approval of obinutuzumab to Genentech, Inc. The application for obinutuzumab in this indication received priority review.
The latest FDA approval means obinutuzumab is available in the US for the following indications:
- In combination with chlorambucil to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in adults who have not had previous CLL treatment
- In combination with bendamustine, followed by obinutuzumab alone, to treat FL in adults who did not respond to a rituximab-containing regimen or whose FL returned after such treatment
- In combination with chemotherapy, followed by obinutuzumab alone in responders, to treat stage II bulky, stage III, or stage IV FL in adults who have not had previous FL treatment.
Phase 3 results
The latest approval of obinutuzumab is based on results from the phase 3 GALLIUM study, which were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting and published in NEJM in October.
The following are updated data from the obinutuzumab prescribing information.
GALLIUM included 1385 patients with previously untreated non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and 1202 of these patients had advanced FL.
Half of the FL patients (n=601) were randomized to receive obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy (followed by obinutuzumab maintenance for up to 2 years), and half were randomized to rituximab plus chemotherapy (followed by rituximab maintenance for up to 2 years).
The different chemotherapies used were CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone), CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone), and bendamustine.
At a median observation time of 38 months, the overall response rate was 91% in the obinutuzumab arm and 88% in the rituximab arm. The complete response rates were 28% and 27%, respectively.
The median progression-free survival was not reached in either arm. The hazard ratio, for obinutuzumab compared to rituximab, was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.93, P=0.0118).
Safety was evaluated based on all 1385 patients in the study, 86% of whom had previously untreated FL and 14% of whom had marginal zone lymphoma.
Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 50% of patients in the obinutuzumab arm and 43% in the rituximab arm. Fatal AEs occurred in 5% and 4%, respectively. Infections and second malignancies were the leading causes of these deaths.
The most common AEs (incidence ≥ 20%) observed at least 2% more patients in the obinutuzumab arm were infusion-related reactions, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, cough, constipation, and diarrhea.
The most common grade 3 to 5 AEs (incidence ≥ 5%) observed more frequently in the obinutuzumab arm were neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approved use of obinutuzumab (Gazyva®).
The drug is now approved for use in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) that is advanced (stage II bulky, stage III, or stage IV) .
In patients who respond to this treatment, obinutuzumab monotherapy can be given as maintenance.
The FDA granted this new approval of obinutuzumab to Genentech, Inc. The application for obinutuzumab in this indication received priority review.
The latest FDA approval means obinutuzumab is available in the US for the following indications:
- In combination with chlorambucil to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in adults who have not had previous CLL treatment
- In combination with bendamustine, followed by obinutuzumab alone, to treat FL in adults who did not respond to a rituximab-containing regimen or whose FL returned after such treatment
- In combination with chemotherapy, followed by obinutuzumab alone in responders, to treat stage II bulky, stage III, or stage IV FL in adults who have not had previous FL treatment.
Phase 3 results
The latest approval of obinutuzumab is based on results from the phase 3 GALLIUM study, which were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting and published in NEJM in October.
The following are updated data from the obinutuzumab prescribing information.
GALLIUM included 1385 patients with previously untreated non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and 1202 of these patients had advanced FL.
Half of the FL patients (n=601) were randomized to receive obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy (followed by obinutuzumab maintenance for up to 2 years), and half were randomized to rituximab plus chemotherapy (followed by rituximab maintenance for up to 2 years).
The different chemotherapies used were CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone), CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone), and bendamustine.
At a median observation time of 38 months, the overall response rate was 91% in the obinutuzumab arm and 88% in the rituximab arm. The complete response rates were 28% and 27%, respectively.
The median progression-free survival was not reached in either arm. The hazard ratio, for obinutuzumab compared to rituximab, was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.93, P=0.0118).
Safety was evaluated based on all 1385 patients in the study, 86% of whom had previously untreated FL and 14% of whom had marginal zone lymphoma.
Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 50% of patients in the obinutuzumab arm and 43% in the rituximab arm. Fatal AEs occurred in 5% and 4%, respectively. Infections and second malignancies were the leading causes of these deaths.
The most common AEs (incidence ≥ 20%) observed at least 2% more patients in the obinutuzumab arm were infusion-related reactions, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, cough, constipation, and diarrhea.
The most common grade 3 to 5 AEs (incidence ≥ 5%) observed more frequently in the obinutuzumab arm were neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the approved use of obinutuzumab (Gazyva®).
The drug is now approved for use in combination with chemotherapy to treat patients with previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL) that is advanced (stage II bulky, stage III, or stage IV) .
In patients who respond to this treatment, obinutuzumab monotherapy can be given as maintenance.
The FDA granted this new approval of obinutuzumab to Genentech, Inc. The application for obinutuzumab in this indication received priority review.
The latest FDA approval means obinutuzumab is available in the US for the following indications:
- In combination with chlorambucil to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in adults who have not had previous CLL treatment
- In combination with bendamustine, followed by obinutuzumab alone, to treat FL in adults who did not respond to a rituximab-containing regimen or whose FL returned after such treatment
- In combination with chemotherapy, followed by obinutuzumab alone in responders, to treat stage II bulky, stage III, or stage IV FL in adults who have not had previous FL treatment.
Phase 3 results
The latest approval of obinutuzumab is based on results from the phase 3 GALLIUM study, which were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting and published in NEJM in October.
The following are updated data from the obinutuzumab prescribing information.
GALLIUM included 1385 patients with previously untreated non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and 1202 of these patients had advanced FL.
Half of the FL patients (n=601) were randomized to receive obinutuzumab plus chemotherapy (followed by obinutuzumab maintenance for up to 2 years), and half were randomized to rituximab plus chemotherapy (followed by rituximab maintenance for up to 2 years).
The different chemotherapies used were CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone), CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisolone), and bendamustine.
At a median observation time of 38 months, the overall response rate was 91% in the obinutuzumab arm and 88% in the rituximab arm. The complete response rates were 28% and 27%, respectively.
The median progression-free survival was not reached in either arm. The hazard ratio, for obinutuzumab compared to rituximab, was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.93, P=0.0118).
Safety was evaluated based on all 1385 patients in the study, 86% of whom had previously untreated FL and 14% of whom had marginal zone lymphoma.
Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 50% of patients in the obinutuzumab arm and 43% in the rituximab arm. Fatal AEs occurred in 5% and 4%, respectively. Infections and second malignancies were the leading causes of these deaths.
The most common AEs (incidence ≥ 20%) observed at least 2% more patients in the obinutuzumab arm were infusion-related reactions, neutropenia, upper respiratory tract infection, cough, constipation, and diarrhea.
The most common grade 3 to 5 AEs (incidence ≥ 5%) observed more frequently in the obinutuzumab arm were neutropenia, infusion-related reactions, febrile neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia.
Rituximab key to survival after transplant for mantle cell lymphoma
The study, which outlines the experience across a variety of different treatment patterns at City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., between January 1997 and November 2013, suggests a “large benefit” of adding rituximab, wrote Matthew G. Mei, MD, of the center’s department of hematology and hematopoietic cell transplantation, and his colleagues. Further, maintenance rituximab was associated with improved survival outcomes in patients with positron emission tomography (PET)-negative status at first complete remission.
The benefit of rituximab “stands out, and adds to the increasing body of evidence supporting this practice for all MCL patients after ASCT, regardless of age and frontline induction regimens,” wrote Dr. Mei and his colleagues (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2017 November. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.07.006). This was the case even with improvements in early diagnosis and supportive care, and the incorporation of novel agents such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and ibrutinib, they wrote, noting significantly better outcomes for patients who underwent ASCT after 2007.
In multivariate analysis, maintenance rituximab therapy after ASCT was the single most important factor associated with improvement in progression-free survival (relative risk [RR], .25; 95% confidence interval, .14-.44) and overall survival (RR, .17; 95% CI, .07-.38).
Positron emission tomography scans were done prior to ASCT for 133 patients; after ASCT, 105 (79%) were found to be in a PET-negative complete remission. All but one of the patients with PET-negative disease received rituximab before ASCT. For that PET-negative subset, maintenance rituximab was significantly associated with improvements in progression-free survival (RR, .20; 95% CI, .09-.43) and overall survival (RR, .17; 95% CI, .05-.59).
This study represents one of the largest single-center reports to date on MCL patients who have undergone ASCT, according to the authors. “This study also sets the stage for prospective investigation aiming at optimization of maintenance therapy following ASCT.”
Dr. Mei reported no disclosures, and senior author Lihua E. Budde, MD, PhD, reported being a member of the Lymphoma Research Foundation MCL consortium. The study was supported by research funding from the National Cancer Institute.
This study confirms the value of maintenance rituximab for a large cohort of patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have undergone high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation outside of clinical trials.
The findings also affirm results of a recent phase 3 randomized trial (LyMa) suggesting that in previously untreated MCL patients who have undergone ASCT, rituximab maintenance is superior to observation in improving overall survival and progression-free survival.
However, the most interesting aspect of this study is the positron emission tomography data. Namely, the benefit of rituximab maintenance was apparent in patients regardless of whether they were in a PET-positive or PET-negative first complete remission at ASCT. “This important finding implies that the benefit of rituximab maintenance after ASCT is present for low- and high-risk MCL patients.”
Despite these confirmatory findings, the treatment landscape for MCL has changed significantly in recent years, particularly with the introduction of treatments such as ibrutinib.
In a clinical trial currently underway, the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network is evaluating ibrutinib as an upfront treatment for young and fit patients. Specifically, the study compares first-line ASCT and rituximab maintenance, ASCT with ibrutinib maintenance, or a transplant-free approach with ibrutinib and chemotherapy.
Unless and until the data from this study “redefine the value of ASCT in the ibrutinib era, ASCT and rituximab maintenance should be recommended as the standard treatment after ASCT for transplant-eligible patients with MCL.”
Tobias Roider, MD, and Sascha Dietrich, MD, are with the Department of Medicine V, University of Heidelberg, Germany. Their comments are in an editorial (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2017 November. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.09.008). The authors reported no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.
This study confirms the value of maintenance rituximab for a large cohort of patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have undergone high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation outside of clinical trials.
The findings also affirm results of a recent phase 3 randomized trial (LyMa) suggesting that in previously untreated MCL patients who have undergone ASCT, rituximab maintenance is superior to observation in improving overall survival and progression-free survival.
However, the most interesting aspect of this study is the positron emission tomography data. Namely, the benefit of rituximab maintenance was apparent in patients regardless of whether they were in a PET-positive or PET-negative first complete remission at ASCT. “This important finding implies that the benefit of rituximab maintenance after ASCT is present for low- and high-risk MCL patients.”
Despite these confirmatory findings, the treatment landscape for MCL has changed significantly in recent years, particularly with the introduction of treatments such as ibrutinib.
In a clinical trial currently underway, the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network is evaluating ibrutinib as an upfront treatment for young and fit patients. Specifically, the study compares first-line ASCT and rituximab maintenance, ASCT with ibrutinib maintenance, or a transplant-free approach with ibrutinib and chemotherapy.
Unless and until the data from this study “redefine the value of ASCT in the ibrutinib era, ASCT and rituximab maintenance should be recommended as the standard treatment after ASCT for transplant-eligible patients with MCL.”
Tobias Roider, MD, and Sascha Dietrich, MD, are with the Department of Medicine V, University of Heidelberg, Germany. Their comments are in an editorial (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2017 November. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.09.008). The authors reported no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.
This study confirms the value of maintenance rituximab for a large cohort of patients with mantle cell lymphoma who have undergone high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation outside of clinical trials.
The findings also affirm results of a recent phase 3 randomized trial (LyMa) suggesting that in previously untreated MCL patients who have undergone ASCT, rituximab maintenance is superior to observation in improving overall survival and progression-free survival.
However, the most interesting aspect of this study is the positron emission tomography data. Namely, the benefit of rituximab maintenance was apparent in patients regardless of whether they were in a PET-positive or PET-negative first complete remission at ASCT. “This important finding implies that the benefit of rituximab maintenance after ASCT is present for low- and high-risk MCL patients.”
Despite these confirmatory findings, the treatment landscape for MCL has changed significantly in recent years, particularly with the introduction of treatments such as ibrutinib.
In a clinical trial currently underway, the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network is evaluating ibrutinib as an upfront treatment for young and fit patients. Specifically, the study compares first-line ASCT and rituximab maintenance, ASCT with ibrutinib maintenance, or a transplant-free approach with ibrutinib and chemotherapy.
Unless and until the data from this study “redefine the value of ASCT in the ibrutinib era, ASCT and rituximab maintenance should be recommended as the standard treatment after ASCT for transplant-eligible patients with MCL.”
Tobias Roider, MD, and Sascha Dietrich, MD, are with the Department of Medicine V, University of Heidelberg, Germany. Their comments are in an editorial (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2017 November. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.09.008). The authors reported no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest.
The study, which outlines the experience across a variety of different treatment patterns at City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., between January 1997 and November 2013, suggests a “large benefit” of adding rituximab, wrote Matthew G. Mei, MD, of the center’s department of hematology and hematopoietic cell transplantation, and his colleagues. Further, maintenance rituximab was associated with improved survival outcomes in patients with positron emission tomography (PET)-negative status at first complete remission.
The benefit of rituximab “stands out, and adds to the increasing body of evidence supporting this practice for all MCL patients after ASCT, regardless of age and frontline induction regimens,” wrote Dr. Mei and his colleagues (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2017 November. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.07.006). This was the case even with improvements in early diagnosis and supportive care, and the incorporation of novel agents such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and ibrutinib, they wrote, noting significantly better outcomes for patients who underwent ASCT after 2007.
In multivariate analysis, maintenance rituximab therapy after ASCT was the single most important factor associated with improvement in progression-free survival (relative risk [RR], .25; 95% confidence interval, .14-.44) and overall survival (RR, .17; 95% CI, .07-.38).
Positron emission tomography scans were done prior to ASCT for 133 patients; after ASCT, 105 (79%) were found to be in a PET-negative complete remission. All but one of the patients with PET-negative disease received rituximab before ASCT. For that PET-negative subset, maintenance rituximab was significantly associated with improvements in progression-free survival (RR, .20; 95% CI, .09-.43) and overall survival (RR, .17; 95% CI, .05-.59).
This study represents one of the largest single-center reports to date on MCL patients who have undergone ASCT, according to the authors. “This study also sets the stage for prospective investigation aiming at optimization of maintenance therapy following ASCT.”
Dr. Mei reported no disclosures, and senior author Lihua E. Budde, MD, PhD, reported being a member of the Lymphoma Research Foundation MCL consortium. The study was supported by research funding from the National Cancer Institute.
The study, which outlines the experience across a variety of different treatment patterns at City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., between January 1997 and November 2013, suggests a “large benefit” of adding rituximab, wrote Matthew G. Mei, MD, of the center’s department of hematology and hematopoietic cell transplantation, and his colleagues. Further, maintenance rituximab was associated with improved survival outcomes in patients with positron emission tomography (PET)-negative status at first complete remission.
The benefit of rituximab “stands out, and adds to the increasing body of evidence supporting this practice for all MCL patients after ASCT, regardless of age and frontline induction regimens,” wrote Dr. Mei and his colleagues (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2017 November. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.07.006). This was the case even with improvements in early diagnosis and supportive care, and the incorporation of novel agents such as bortezomib, lenalidomide, and ibrutinib, they wrote, noting significantly better outcomes for patients who underwent ASCT after 2007.
In multivariate analysis, maintenance rituximab therapy after ASCT was the single most important factor associated with improvement in progression-free survival (relative risk [RR], .25; 95% confidence interval, .14-.44) and overall survival (RR, .17; 95% CI, .07-.38).
Positron emission tomography scans were done prior to ASCT for 133 patients; after ASCT, 105 (79%) were found to be in a PET-negative complete remission. All but one of the patients with PET-negative disease received rituximab before ASCT. For that PET-negative subset, maintenance rituximab was significantly associated with improvements in progression-free survival (RR, .20; 95% CI, .09-.43) and overall survival (RR, .17; 95% CI, .05-.59).
This study represents one of the largest single-center reports to date on MCL patients who have undergone ASCT, according to the authors. “This study also sets the stage for prospective investigation aiming at optimization of maintenance therapy following ASCT.”
Dr. Mei reported no disclosures, and senior author Lihua E. Budde, MD, PhD, reported being a member of the Lymphoma Research Foundation MCL consortium. The study was supported by research funding from the National Cancer Institute.
FROM BIOLOGY OF BLOOD AND MARROW TRANSPLANTATION
Key clinical point: Over time and in many different patterns, rituximab maintenance therapy stood out as the prominent factor influencing survival in patients with mantle cell lymphoma who undergo autologous stem cell transplant.
Major finding: Maintenance rituximab was significantly associated with superior progression-free survival (relative risk, .25; 95% confidence interval, .14-.44) and overall survival (RR, .17; 95% CI, .07-.38).
Data source: Retrospective analysis of data for 191 patients with MCL who underwent ASCT at a medical center in California between January 1997 and November 2013.
Disclosures: The study was supported by research funding from the National Cancer Institute. Senior author Lihua E. Budde, MD, PhD, reported being a member of the Lymphoma Research Foundation MCL consortium.
Debate: Is MRD ready for prime time in multiple myeloma?
NEW YORK – Evidence of minimal residual disease (MRD) has been shown to be an important prognostic factor in several different hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic myeloid leukemias, but its clinical utility in day-to-day practice in multiple myeloma is still uncertain.
At the annual Lymphoma & Myeloma International Congress on Hematologic Malignancies, C. Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, chief of the myeloma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Paul G. Richardson, MD, clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Myeloma Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, debated the question: “Is MRD ready for prime time?”
Yes: Dr. Landgren
“As we all know, with older drugs for myeloma, only a small proportion of patients reached a complete response, so there was really no reason to talk about MRD. But this belongs to the past: using the modern combination therapies, about 100% of our patients have a response, an overall response, and up to 80% of patients are reaching a complete response. So it’s really necessary, a logical step to go forward, to look at MRD,” Dr. Landgren said.
He cited evidence from two meta-analyses showing that MRD negativity is a strong predictor of clinical outcomes, including long-term survival.
“Our results show that MRD negativity is a strong predictor of clinical outcomes, supportive of MRD becoming a regulatory end point for drug approval in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” they wrote.
In a second meta-analysis, Nikhil Munshi, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and his colleagues, reviewed PFS data from 14 studies with a total of 1,273 patients, and OS data from 12 studies with a total of 1,100 patients.
This second meta-analysis found that MRD negativity was associated with significantly better PFS (HR, 0.41; P less than .001), including among patients in studies looking specifically at complete response (CR) (HR, 0.44; P less than .001).
Munshi et al. also saw a significant benefit for MRD negativity among all patients in trials with OS as the endpoint (HR, 0.57; P less than .001) and in those focusing on patients with a CR (HR, 0.47; P less than .001).
They concluded that MRD-negative status after treatment for new newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is associated with long-term survival, and like Landgren et al. contended that their findings “provide quantitative evidence to support the integration of MRD assessment as an end point in clinical trials of multiple myeloma.”
Dr. Landgren noted that 2016 International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma, coauthored by both Dr. Landgren and Dr. Richardson, now incorporate MRD.
In addition, in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial comparing induction therapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with or without autologous stem cell transplant after three cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone, patients in each trial arm who were MRD negative had significantly better PFS than patients who were MRD positive after consolidation, regardless of assigned treatment, Dr. Landgren noted.
In the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma setting, MRD negativity was associated with better PFS for patients in the POLLUX trial, whether subjects were assigned to receive daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or len-dex alone.
“This raises an important question: Is MRD more important than treatment modality?” Dr. Landgren said.
“The debate is: Is MRD ready for prime time? And as I have shown you with all the data, the answer is ‘Yes’,” he concluded.
No: Dr. Richardson
“My position on this is that MRD testing is absolutely ready for prime time in the research and regulatory arena. The question for me as a clinician in my clinic is: ‘Do I apply it to everyday practice?’ And I would simply suggest to you at this point we’re not ready for that, and we’re not ready for that for a variety of complex reasons,” Dr. Richardson said in his rebuttal.
He cited a definition of MRD offered by Simone Ferrero, MD, and his colleagues from the University of Turin (Italy) in 2011 in Hematological Oncology: “Any approach aimed at detecting and possibly quantifying residual tumor cells beyond the sensitivity level of routine imaging and laboratory techniques.”
“We recognize in hematologic malignancies in particular, and increasingly in myeloma, that achievement of complete clinical remission and assessing this needs a variety of different scenarios,” he said.
These scenarios may include establishing the full eradication of the neoplastic clone, determining the long-term persistence of quiescent or nonclonogenic or immunologically regulated tumor cells, or persistence of clonogenic cells capable of giving rise to a full clinical relapse within a number of years.
Myeloma specialists recognize that MRD is a real phenomenon, made more challenging by the “extraordinary” heterogeneity of myeloma, he said.
Determination of MRD using sensitive molecular techniques may allow analysis of treatments that induce a greater depth of response than others, and may also identify patients who are experiencing early relapse and will need further treatment, Dr. Richardson acknowledged.
“The question is, should it dictate what you and I do every afternoon in the clinic with a particular patient, for example, outside of a clinical trial?”
He noted that MRD is still a secondary endpoint in trials for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, acute promyelocytic leukemia, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, although it has been accepted by the FDA as a primary endpoint to assess molecular responses to second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
MRD is also still a secondary endpoint in trials for therapies against follicular and mantle cell lymphomas as well.
“So my hypothesis, or suggestion to you this morning, is that whilst MRD clearly is a vital area of research – and I especially applaud Ola for being on the forefront of this, and I fully support all the points he made – I would just simply suggest to you that it’s less advanced than in leukemia and lymphoma, and we are currently at the point where MRD assessments are clearly secondary endpoints and an important research tool,” he said,
MRD remains a research tool in multiple myeloma because, despite the wealth of new therapies and combinations approved in just the past few years, “we’re not able to eradicate it completely, and cure remains in myeloma, frankly, evasive,” he added.
Immunotherapy, for example, is not the “mutationally agnostic” approach that clinicians had hoped for, with recent evidence suggesting that it cannot overcome every genetic variation that may give rise to multiple myeloma.
For MRD to become a useful clinical tool rather than a research/regulatory tool, standardization of testing methods will be needed. Flow cytometry until recently has been the mainstay for detecting MRD, but molecular strategies are currently being investigated, and rapid next-generation sequencing has the potential to become a gold standard, with its ability to identify and quantify all clonotypes in a sample.
“What’s critical is, therapeutic adjustment for what? What is the difference? For example, [if] one arm of a trial has 20% MRD positivity vs. 40% in another, what does that really mean for overall survival? These are enormous challenges that we still face,” Dr. Richardson said.
“I do think the lack of standardization broadly across the country is a challenge, and so with that in mind, I would simply suggest that it is not yet a standard of care in clinical practice, but may be,” he concluded.
Dr. Landgren disclosed serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene and Janssen. Dr. Richardson disclosed consulting for Celgene and Takeda.
NEW YORK – Evidence of minimal residual disease (MRD) has been shown to be an important prognostic factor in several different hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic myeloid leukemias, but its clinical utility in day-to-day practice in multiple myeloma is still uncertain.
At the annual Lymphoma & Myeloma International Congress on Hematologic Malignancies, C. Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, chief of the myeloma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Paul G. Richardson, MD, clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Myeloma Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, debated the question: “Is MRD ready for prime time?”
Yes: Dr. Landgren
“As we all know, with older drugs for myeloma, only a small proportion of patients reached a complete response, so there was really no reason to talk about MRD. But this belongs to the past: using the modern combination therapies, about 100% of our patients have a response, an overall response, and up to 80% of patients are reaching a complete response. So it’s really necessary, a logical step to go forward, to look at MRD,” Dr. Landgren said.
He cited evidence from two meta-analyses showing that MRD negativity is a strong predictor of clinical outcomes, including long-term survival.
“Our results show that MRD negativity is a strong predictor of clinical outcomes, supportive of MRD becoming a regulatory end point for drug approval in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” they wrote.
In a second meta-analysis, Nikhil Munshi, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and his colleagues, reviewed PFS data from 14 studies with a total of 1,273 patients, and OS data from 12 studies with a total of 1,100 patients.
This second meta-analysis found that MRD negativity was associated with significantly better PFS (HR, 0.41; P less than .001), including among patients in studies looking specifically at complete response (CR) (HR, 0.44; P less than .001).
Munshi et al. also saw a significant benefit for MRD negativity among all patients in trials with OS as the endpoint (HR, 0.57; P less than .001) and in those focusing on patients with a CR (HR, 0.47; P less than .001).
They concluded that MRD-negative status after treatment for new newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is associated with long-term survival, and like Landgren et al. contended that their findings “provide quantitative evidence to support the integration of MRD assessment as an end point in clinical trials of multiple myeloma.”
Dr. Landgren noted that 2016 International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma, coauthored by both Dr. Landgren and Dr. Richardson, now incorporate MRD.
In addition, in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial comparing induction therapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with or without autologous stem cell transplant after three cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone, patients in each trial arm who were MRD negative had significantly better PFS than patients who were MRD positive after consolidation, regardless of assigned treatment, Dr. Landgren noted.
In the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma setting, MRD negativity was associated with better PFS for patients in the POLLUX trial, whether subjects were assigned to receive daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or len-dex alone.
“This raises an important question: Is MRD more important than treatment modality?” Dr. Landgren said.
“The debate is: Is MRD ready for prime time? And as I have shown you with all the data, the answer is ‘Yes’,” he concluded.
No: Dr. Richardson
“My position on this is that MRD testing is absolutely ready for prime time in the research and regulatory arena. The question for me as a clinician in my clinic is: ‘Do I apply it to everyday practice?’ And I would simply suggest to you at this point we’re not ready for that, and we’re not ready for that for a variety of complex reasons,” Dr. Richardson said in his rebuttal.
He cited a definition of MRD offered by Simone Ferrero, MD, and his colleagues from the University of Turin (Italy) in 2011 in Hematological Oncology: “Any approach aimed at detecting and possibly quantifying residual tumor cells beyond the sensitivity level of routine imaging and laboratory techniques.”
“We recognize in hematologic malignancies in particular, and increasingly in myeloma, that achievement of complete clinical remission and assessing this needs a variety of different scenarios,” he said.
These scenarios may include establishing the full eradication of the neoplastic clone, determining the long-term persistence of quiescent or nonclonogenic or immunologically regulated tumor cells, or persistence of clonogenic cells capable of giving rise to a full clinical relapse within a number of years.
Myeloma specialists recognize that MRD is a real phenomenon, made more challenging by the “extraordinary” heterogeneity of myeloma, he said.
Determination of MRD using sensitive molecular techniques may allow analysis of treatments that induce a greater depth of response than others, and may also identify patients who are experiencing early relapse and will need further treatment, Dr. Richardson acknowledged.
“The question is, should it dictate what you and I do every afternoon in the clinic with a particular patient, for example, outside of a clinical trial?”
He noted that MRD is still a secondary endpoint in trials for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, acute promyelocytic leukemia, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, although it has been accepted by the FDA as a primary endpoint to assess molecular responses to second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
MRD is also still a secondary endpoint in trials for therapies against follicular and mantle cell lymphomas as well.
“So my hypothesis, or suggestion to you this morning, is that whilst MRD clearly is a vital area of research – and I especially applaud Ola for being on the forefront of this, and I fully support all the points he made – I would just simply suggest to you that it’s less advanced than in leukemia and lymphoma, and we are currently at the point where MRD assessments are clearly secondary endpoints and an important research tool,” he said,
MRD remains a research tool in multiple myeloma because, despite the wealth of new therapies and combinations approved in just the past few years, “we’re not able to eradicate it completely, and cure remains in myeloma, frankly, evasive,” he added.
Immunotherapy, for example, is not the “mutationally agnostic” approach that clinicians had hoped for, with recent evidence suggesting that it cannot overcome every genetic variation that may give rise to multiple myeloma.
For MRD to become a useful clinical tool rather than a research/regulatory tool, standardization of testing methods will be needed. Flow cytometry until recently has been the mainstay for detecting MRD, but molecular strategies are currently being investigated, and rapid next-generation sequencing has the potential to become a gold standard, with its ability to identify and quantify all clonotypes in a sample.
“What’s critical is, therapeutic adjustment for what? What is the difference? For example, [if] one arm of a trial has 20% MRD positivity vs. 40% in another, what does that really mean for overall survival? These are enormous challenges that we still face,” Dr. Richardson said.
“I do think the lack of standardization broadly across the country is a challenge, and so with that in mind, I would simply suggest that it is not yet a standard of care in clinical practice, but may be,” he concluded.
Dr. Landgren disclosed serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene and Janssen. Dr. Richardson disclosed consulting for Celgene and Takeda.
NEW YORK – Evidence of minimal residual disease (MRD) has been shown to be an important prognostic factor in several different hematologic malignancies, including acute and chronic myeloid leukemias, but its clinical utility in day-to-day practice in multiple myeloma is still uncertain.
At the annual Lymphoma & Myeloma International Congress on Hematologic Malignancies, C. Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, chief of the myeloma service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and Paul G. Richardson, MD, clinical program leader and director of clinical research at the Jerome Lipper Myeloma Center at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, debated the question: “Is MRD ready for prime time?”
Yes: Dr. Landgren
“As we all know, with older drugs for myeloma, only a small proportion of patients reached a complete response, so there was really no reason to talk about MRD. But this belongs to the past: using the modern combination therapies, about 100% of our patients have a response, an overall response, and up to 80% of patients are reaching a complete response. So it’s really necessary, a logical step to go forward, to look at MRD,” Dr. Landgren said.
He cited evidence from two meta-analyses showing that MRD negativity is a strong predictor of clinical outcomes, including long-term survival.
“Our results show that MRD negativity is a strong predictor of clinical outcomes, supportive of MRD becoming a regulatory end point for drug approval in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” they wrote.
In a second meta-analysis, Nikhil Munshi, MD, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and his colleagues, reviewed PFS data from 14 studies with a total of 1,273 patients, and OS data from 12 studies with a total of 1,100 patients.
This second meta-analysis found that MRD negativity was associated with significantly better PFS (HR, 0.41; P less than .001), including among patients in studies looking specifically at complete response (CR) (HR, 0.44; P less than .001).
Munshi et al. also saw a significant benefit for MRD negativity among all patients in trials with OS as the endpoint (HR, 0.57; P less than .001) and in those focusing on patients with a CR (HR, 0.47; P less than .001).
They concluded that MRD-negative status after treatment for new newly diagnosed multiple myeloma is associated with long-term survival, and like Landgren et al. contended that their findings “provide quantitative evidence to support the integration of MRD assessment as an end point in clinical trials of multiple myeloma.”
Dr. Landgren noted that 2016 International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma, coauthored by both Dr. Landgren and Dr. Richardson, now incorporate MRD.
In addition, in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial comparing induction therapy for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma with or without autologous stem cell transplant after three cycles of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone, patients in each trial arm who were MRD negative had significantly better PFS than patients who were MRD positive after consolidation, regardless of assigned treatment, Dr. Landgren noted.
In the relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma setting, MRD negativity was associated with better PFS for patients in the POLLUX trial, whether subjects were assigned to receive daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or len-dex alone.
“This raises an important question: Is MRD more important than treatment modality?” Dr. Landgren said.
“The debate is: Is MRD ready for prime time? And as I have shown you with all the data, the answer is ‘Yes’,” he concluded.
No: Dr. Richardson
“My position on this is that MRD testing is absolutely ready for prime time in the research and regulatory arena. The question for me as a clinician in my clinic is: ‘Do I apply it to everyday practice?’ And I would simply suggest to you at this point we’re not ready for that, and we’re not ready for that for a variety of complex reasons,” Dr. Richardson said in his rebuttal.
He cited a definition of MRD offered by Simone Ferrero, MD, and his colleagues from the University of Turin (Italy) in 2011 in Hematological Oncology: “Any approach aimed at detecting and possibly quantifying residual tumor cells beyond the sensitivity level of routine imaging and laboratory techniques.”
“We recognize in hematologic malignancies in particular, and increasingly in myeloma, that achievement of complete clinical remission and assessing this needs a variety of different scenarios,” he said.
These scenarios may include establishing the full eradication of the neoplastic clone, determining the long-term persistence of quiescent or nonclonogenic or immunologically regulated tumor cells, or persistence of clonogenic cells capable of giving rise to a full clinical relapse within a number of years.
Myeloma specialists recognize that MRD is a real phenomenon, made more challenging by the “extraordinary” heterogeneity of myeloma, he said.
Determination of MRD using sensitive molecular techniques may allow analysis of treatments that induce a greater depth of response than others, and may also identify patients who are experiencing early relapse and will need further treatment, Dr. Richardson acknowledged.
“The question is, should it dictate what you and I do every afternoon in the clinic with a particular patient, for example, outside of a clinical trial?”
He noted that MRD is still a secondary endpoint in trials for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, acute promyelocytic leukemia, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, although it has been accepted by the FDA as a primary endpoint to assess molecular responses to second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors.
MRD is also still a secondary endpoint in trials for therapies against follicular and mantle cell lymphomas as well.
“So my hypothesis, or suggestion to you this morning, is that whilst MRD clearly is a vital area of research – and I especially applaud Ola for being on the forefront of this, and I fully support all the points he made – I would just simply suggest to you that it’s less advanced than in leukemia and lymphoma, and we are currently at the point where MRD assessments are clearly secondary endpoints and an important research tool,” he said,
MRD remains a research tool in multiple myeloma because, despite the wealth of new therapies and combinations approved in just the past few years, “we’re not able to eradicate it completely, and cure remains in myeloma, frankly, evasive,” he added.
Immunotherapy, for example, is not the “mutationally agnostic” approach that clinicians had hoped for, with recent evidence suggesting that it cannot overcome every genetic variation that may give rise to multiple myeloma.
For MRD to become a useful clinical tool rather than a research/regulatory tool, standardization of testing methods will be needed. Flow cytometry until recently has been the mainstay for detecting MRD, but molecular strategies are currently being investigated, and rapid next-generation sequencing has the potential to become a gold standard, with its ability to identify and quantify all clonotypes in a sample.
“What’s critical is, therapeutic adjustment for what? What is the difference? For example, [if] one arm of a trial has 20% MRD positivity vs. 40% in another, what does that really mean for overall survival? These are enormous challenges that we still face,” Dr. Richardson said.
“I do think the lack of standardization broadly across the country is a challenge, and so with that in mind, I would simply suggest that it is not yet a standard of care in clinical practice, but may be,” he concluded.
Dr. Landgren disclosed serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene and Janssen. Dr. Richardson disclosed consulting for Celgene and Takeda.
AT LYMPHOMA & MYELOMA 2017
Parity laws don’t lower oral cancer drug costs for everyone
US state laws intended to ensure fair prices for oral cancer drugs have had a mixed impact on patients’ pocketbooks, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
A total of 43 states and Washington, DC, have enacted parity laws, which require that patients pay no more for an oral cancer treatment than they would for an infusion of the same treatment.
Researchers analyzed the impact of these laws and observed modest improvements in costs for some patients.
However, patients who were already paying the most for their medications saw their monthly costs go up.
“Although parity laws appear to help reduce out-of-pocket spending for some patients, they may not fully address affordability for patients needing cancer drugs,” said study author Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“We need to consider ways to address drug pricing directly and to improve benefit design to make sure that all patients can access prescribed drugs.”
To gauge the impact of parity laws on treatment costs, Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues analyzed health claims data for 63,780 adults from 3 large, nationwide insurance companies before and after the laws were enacted, from 2008 to 2012.
The team compared the cost of filling an oral cancer drug prescription for patients with health insurance plans that were covered by the state laws (fully insured) and patients whose plans were not (self-funded). All patients lived in 1 of 16 states that had passed parity laws at the time of the study.
About half of patients (51.4%) had fully insured plans, and the other half (48.6%) had self-funded plans.
For the entire cohort, the use of oral cancer drugs increased from 18% in the months before parity laws were passed to 22% in the months after (adjusted difference-in-differences risk ratio [aDDRR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.13; P=0.34).
The proportion of prescription fills for oral drugs without copayment increased from 15.0% to 53.0% for patients with fully insured plans and from 12.3% to 18.0% in patients with self-funded plans (aDDRR, 2.36; 95% CI, 2.00-2.79; P<0.001).
“From our results, it looks like many plans decided they would just set the co-pay for oral drugs to $0,” Dr Dusetzina said. “Instead of $30 per month, those fills were now $0.”
The proportion of prescription fills with out-of-pocket cost of more than $100 per month increased from 8.4% to 11.1% for patients with fully insured plans but decreased from 12.0% to 11.7% for those with self-funded plans (aDDRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.68; P=0.004).
Patients paying the most for their oral cancer drug prescriptions experienced increases in their monthly out-of-pocket costs after parity laws were passed.
For patients whose costs were more expensive than 95% of other patients, their out-of-pocket costs increased an estimated $143.25 per month. Those paying more than 90% of what other patients paid saw their costs increase by $37.19 per month.
“One of the biggest problems with parity laws as they are written is that they don’t address the prices of these medications, which can be very high,” Dr Dusetzina noted.
“Parity can be reached as long as the coverage is the same for both oral and infused cancer therapies. Because we’re now seeing more people insured by plans with high deductibles or plans that require them to pay a percentage of their drug costs, parity may not reduce spending for some patients.”
However, Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues did find that patients who paid the least for their oral cancer treatments saw their estimated monthly out-of-pocket spending decrease.
Patients in the 25th percentile saw an estimated decrease of $19.44 per month, those in the 50th percentile saw a $32.13 decrease, and patients in the 75th percentile saw a decrease of $10.83.
On the other hand, the researchers also found that average 6-month healthcare costs—including what was paid by insurance companies and patients—did not change significantly as a result of parity laws.
The aDDRR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90-1.02; P=0.09) for all cancer treatments and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P=0.40) for oral cancer drugs.
“One of the key arguments against passing parity, both for states that haven’t passed it and for legislation at the federal level, has been that it may increase costs to health plans,” Dr Dusetzina said. “But we didn’t find evidence of that.”
US state laws intended to ensure fair prices for oral cancer drugs have had a mixed impact on patients’ pocketbooks, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
A total of 43 states and Washington, DC, have enacted parity laws, which require that patients pay no more for an oral cancer treatment than they would for an infusion of the same treatment.
Researchers analyzed the impact of these laws and observed modest improvements in costs for some patients.
However, patients who were already paying the most for their medications saw their monthly costs go up.
“Although parity laws appear to help reduce out-of-pocket spending for some patients, they may not fully address affordability for patients needing cancer drugs,” said study author Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“We need to consider ways to address drug pricing directly and to improve benefit design to make sure that all patients can access prescribed drugs.”
To gauge the impact of parity laws on treatment costs, Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues analyzed health claims data for 63,780 adults from 3 large, nationwide insurance companies before and after the laws were enacted, from 2008 to 2012.
The team compared the cost of filling an oral cancer drug prescription for patients with health insurance plans that were covered by the state laws (fully insured) and patients whose plans were not (self-funded). All patients lived in 1 of 16 states that had passed parity laws at the time of the study.
About half of patients (51.4%) had fully insured plans, and the other half (48.6%) had self-funded plans.
For the entire cohort, the use of oral cancer drugs increased from 18% in the months before parity laws were passed to 22% in the months after (adjusted difference-in-differences risk ratio [aDDRR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.13; P=0.34).
The proportion of prescription fills for oral drugs without copayment increased from 15.0% to 53.0% for patients with fully insured plans and from 12.3% to 18.0% in patients with self-funded plans (aDDRR, 2.36; 95% CI, 2.00-2.79; P<0.001).
“From our results, it looks like many plans decided they would just set the co-pay for oral drugs to $0,” Dr Dusetzina said. “Instead of $30 per month, those fills were now $0.”
The proportion of prescription fills with out-of-pocket cost of more than $100 per month increased from 8.4% to 11.1% for patients with fully insured plans but decreased from 12.0% to 11.7% for those with self-funded plans (aDDRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.68; P=0.004).
Patients paying the most for their oral cancer drug prescriptions experienced increases in their monthly out-of-pocket costs after parity laws were passed.
For patients whose costs were more expensive than 95% of other patients, their out-of-pocket costs increased an estimated $143.25 per month. Those paying more than 90% of what other patients paid saw their costs increase by $37.19 per month.
“One of the biggest problems with parity laws as they are written is that they don’t address the prices of these medications, which can be very high,” Dr Dusetzina noted.
“Parity can be reached as long as the coverage is the same for both oral and infused cancer therapies. Because we’re now seeing more people insured by plans with high deductibles or plans that require them to pay a percentage of their drug costs, parity may not reduce spending for some patients.”
However, Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues did find that patients who paid the least for their oral cancer treatments saw their estimated monthly out-of-pocket spending decrease.
Patients in the 25th percentile saw an estimated decrease of $19.44 per month, those in the 50th percentile saw a $32.13 decrease, and patients in the 75th percentile saw a decrease of $10.83.
On the other hand, the researchers also found that average 6-month healthcare costs—including what was paid by insurance companies and patients—did not change significantly as a result of parity laws.
The aDDRR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90-1.02; P=0.09) for all cancer treatments and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P=0.40) for oral cancer drugs.
“One of the key arguments against passing parity, both for states that haven’t passed it and for legislation at the federal level, has been that it may increase costs to health plans,” Dr Dusetzina said. “But we didn’t find evidence of that.”
US state laws intended to ensure fair prices for oral cancer drugs have had a mixed impact on patients’ pocketbooks, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
A total of 43 states and Washington, DC, have enacted parity laws, which require that patients pay no more for an oral cancer treatment than they would for an infusion of the same treatment.
Researchers analyzed the impact of these laws and observed modest improvements in costs for some patients.
However, patients who were already paying the most for their medications saw their monthly costs go up.
“Although parity laws appear to help reduce out-of-pocket spending for some patients, they may not fully address affordability for patients needing cancer drugs,” said study author Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“We need to consider ways to address drug pricing directly and to improve benefit design to make sure that all patients can access prescribed drugs.”
To gauge the impact of parity laws on treatment costs, Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues analyzed health claims data for 63,780 adults from 3 large, nationwide insurance companies before and after the laws were enacted, from 2008 to 2012.
The team compared the cost of filling an oral cancer drug prescription for patients with health insurance plans that were covered by the state laws (fully insured) and patients whose plans were not (self-funded). All patients lived in 1 of 16 states that had passed parity laws at the time of the study.
About half of patients (51.4%) had fully insured plans, and the other half (48.6%) had self-funded plans.
For the entire cohort, the use of oral cancer drugs increased from 18% in the months before parity laws were passed to 22% in the months after (adjusted difference-in-differences risk ratio [aDDRR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.13; P=0.34).
The proportion of prescription fills for oral drugs without copayment increased from 15.0% to 53.0% for patients with fully insured plans and from 12.3% to 18.0% in patients with self-funded plans (aDDRR, 2.36; 95% CI, 2.00-2.79; P<0.001).
“From our results, it looks like many plans decided they would just set the co-pay for oral drugs to $0,” Dr Dusetzina said. “Instead of $30 per month, those fills were now $0.”
The proportion of prescription fills with out-of-pocket cost of more than $100 per month increased from 8.4% to 11.1% for patients with fully insured plans but decreased from 12.0% to 11.7% for those with self-funded plans (aDDRR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.68; P=0.004).
Patients paying the most for their oral cancer drug prescriptions experienced increases in their monthly out-of-pocket costs after parity laws were passed.
For patients whose costs were more expensive than 95% of other patients, their out-of-pocket costs increased an estimated $143.25 per month. Those paying more than 90% of what other patients paid saw their costs increase by $37.19 per month.
“One of the biggest problems with parity laws as they are written is that they don’t address the prices of these medications, which can be very high,” Dr Dusetzina noted.
“Parity can be reached as long as the coverage is the same for both oral and infused cancer therapies. Because we’re now seeing more people insured by plans with high deductibles or plans that require them to pay a percentage of their drug costs, parity may not reduce spending for some patients.”
However, Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues did find that patients who paid the least for their oral cancer treatments saw their estimated monthly out-of-pocket spending decrease.
Patients in the 25th percentile saw an estimated decrease of $19.44 per month, those in the 50th percentile saw a $32.13 decrease, and patients in the 75th percentile saw a decrease of $10.83.
On the other hand, the researchers also found that average 6-month healthcare costs—including what was paid by insurance companies and patients—did not change significantly as a result of parity laws.
The aDDRR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.90-1.02; P=0.09) for all cancer treatments and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P=0.40) for oral cancer drugs.
“One of the key arguments against passing parity, both for states that haven’t passed it and for legislation at the federal level, has been that it may increase costs to health plans,” Dr Dusetzina said. “But we didn’t find evidence of that.”
CHMP wants to expand use of BV to include CTCL
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved indication for brentuximab vedotin (BV, Adcetris).
The CHMP is recommending authorization of BV to treat adults with CD30+ cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) who have received at least 1 prior systemic therapy.
The CHMP’s opinion will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).
If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.
The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.
The EC previously approved BV to treat:
- Adults with relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or following at least 2 prior therapies when ASCT or multi-agent chemotherapy is not a treatment option
- Adults with CD30+ HL at increased risk of relapse or progression following ASCT
- Adults with relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma.
The CHMP’s recommendation to approve BV for CTCL is based on data from the phase 3 ALCANZA trial and a pair of phase 2 investigator-sponsored trials.
Data from the investigator-sponsored trials were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in July 2015 and August 2015.
Results from ALCANZA were presented at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum in January and published in The Lancet in June.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved indication for brentuximab vedotin (BV, Adcetris).
The CHMP is recommending authorization of BV to treat adults with CD30+ cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) who have received at least 1 prior systemic therapy.
The CHMP’s opinion will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).
If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.
The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.
The EC previously approved BV to treat:
- Adults with relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or following at least 2 prior therapies when ASCT or multi-agent chemotherapy is not a treatment option
- Adults with CD30+ HL at increased risk of relapse or progression following ASCT
- Adults with relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma.
The CHMP’s recommendation to approve BV for CTCL is based on data from the phase 3 ALCANZA trial and a pair of phase 2 investigator-sponsored trials.
Data from the investigator-sponsored trials were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in July 2015 and August 2015.
Results from ALCANZA were presented at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum in January and published in The Lancet in June.
The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has recommended expanding the approved indication for brentuximab vedotin (BV, Adcetris).
The CHMP is recommending authorization of BV to treat adults with CD30+ cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) who have received at least 1 prior systemic therapy.
The CHMP’s opinion will be reviewed by the European Commission (EC).
If the EC agrees with the CHMP, the commission will grant a centralized marketing authorization that will be valid in the European Union. Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein will make corresponding decisions on the basis of the EC’s decision.
The EC typically makes a decision within 67 days of the CHMP’s recommendation.
The EC previously approved BV to treat:
- Adults with relapsed or refractory CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) following autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) or following at least 2 prior therapies when ASCT or multi-agent chemotherapy is not a treatment option
- Adults with CD30+ HL at increased risk of relapse or progression following ASCT
- Adults with relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma.
The CHMP’s recommendation to approve BV for CTCL is based on data from the phase 3 ALCANZA trial and a pair of phase 2 investigator-sponsored trials.
Data from the investigator-sponsored trials were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in July 2015 and August 2015.
Results from ALCANZA were presented at the 9th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum in January and published in The Lancet in June.
TP53 mutations could help stratify MCL patients
TP53 mutations identified a phenotypically distinct and aggressive form of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) that did not respond to standard-of-care treatments, according to results from 183 patients younger than 66 years from the Nordic MCL2 and MCL3 trials.
, and that patients with the mutations should be considered for experimental trials of novel agents, wrote Christian W. Eskelund of the department of hematology at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues. 
The researchers collected DNA from the Nordic MCL2 and MCL3 trials and 183 samples were of sufficient quality for genetic analyses. They examined the prognostic value of eight recurrently mutated and two recurrently deleted genes. Only TP53 mutations showed an independent prognostic effect for overall survival (hazard ratio 6.2; P less than .0001) in multivariate Cox regression analyses.
“Our data show that TP53 mutations identify a unique MCL subtype associated with high-risk baseline characteristics, dismal response to standard treatment, and poor clinical outcome,” the researchers wrote.
Read the full study in Blood (2017 Oct 26;130[17]:1903-10).
mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @maryellenny
TP53 mutations identified a phenotypically distinct and aggressive form of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) that did not respond to standard-of-care treatments, according to results from 183 patients younger than 66 years from the Nordic MCL2 and MCL3 trials.
, and that patients with the mutations should be considered for experimental trials of novel agents, wrote Christian W. Eskelund of the department of hematology at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues.
The researchers collected DNA from the Nordic MCL2 and MCL3 trials and 183 samples were of sufficient quality for genetic analyses. They examined the prognostic value of eight recurrently mutated and two recurrently deleted genes. Only TP53 mutations showed an independent prognostic effect for overall survival (hazard ratio 6.2; P less than .0001) in multivariate Cox regression analyses.
“Our data show that TP53 mutations identify a unique MCL subtype associated with high-risk baseline characteristics, dismal response to standard treatment, and poor clinical outcome,” the researchers wrote.
Read the full study in Blood (2017 Oct 26;130[17]:1903-10).
mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @maryellenny
TP53 mutations identified a phenotypically distinct and aggressive form of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) that did not respond to standard-of-care treatments, according to results from 183 patients younger than 66 years from the Nordic MCL2 and MCL3 trials.
, and that patients with the mutations should be considered for experimental trials of novel agents, wrote Christian W. Eskelund of the department of hematology at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, and colleagues.
The researchers collected DNA from the Nordic MCL2 and MCL3 trials and 183 samples were of sufficient quality for genetic analyses. They examined the prognostic value of eight recurrently mutated and two recurrently deleted genes. Only TP53 mutations showed an independent prognostic effect for overall survival (hazard ratio 6.2; P less than .0001) in multivariate Cox regression analyses.
“Our data show that TP53 mutations identify a unique MCL subtype associated with high-risk baseline characteristics, dismal response to standard treatment, and poor clinical outcome,” the researchers wrote.
Read the full study in Blood (2017 Oct 26;130[17]:1903-10).
mschneider@frontlinemedcom.com
On Twitter @maryellenny
FROM BLOOD