User login
MCL: Event-free survival at 2 years bodes well
In this era of efficacious treatments for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), patients who survive 2 years sans disease recurrence or progression live nearly as long as age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population, a recent study showed.
Patients with MCL who achieved this endpoint – event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) – also had a low risk of lymphoma-related death, and most often died from unrelated causes, according to results of the prospective cohort study.
Although longer follow-up and confirmation from other study groups are needed, these findings demonstrated a prognostic role for EFS24 in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to the lead author, Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist with Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
As more effective therapies emerge, overall survival (OS) will likely continue to improve, such that EFS24 will may become an important clinical endpoint in MCL frontline therapy, according to Dr. Wang.
“When we counseled patients with newly diagnosed MCL, we used to tell them that this is an aggressive and incurable disease, and patients would feel bad about it, “ Dr. Wang said in an interview.
“Now that we have better therapy, and outcomes are improving,” he continued, “I think it’s important to tell our patients now that we have improved outcomes for patients with this disease, and things are probably going to get better in the future, to always remain hopeful. That’s powerful for our patients to know.”
Two eras of treatment
The current analysis by Dr. Wang and colleagues was based on patients identified in the Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource Cohort Study, a prospective observational study of lymphoma patients evaluated at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa.
The patients were divided into two “eras” of treatment, based on the date of enrollment. Era 1 of enrollment was 2002 to 2009, and Era 2 was 2010 to 2015.
Patients in Era 2 had a substantially improved EFS and OS compared with those in Era 1, according to a previous report from Dr. Wang and coauthors.
Those improved treatment outcomes were likely due to advances in frontline immunochemotherapy, the authors said in that report. In particular, they pointed to the use of highly effective induction regimens containing high-dose cytarabine in patients who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation, and the combined use of rituximab-bendamustine in patients who were not eligible for transplant.
In addition, the increased use of salvage treatments such as lenalidomide and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors has likely contributed to improvements in outcomes across eras, Dr. Wang and coauthors said in the present report, which looks more closely at the prognostic role of the EFS24 endpoint in Era 1 and Era 2 patients.
The five-year OS for patients diagnosed in Era 2 was 68.4%, compared with 59.2% in Era 1, the authors reported.
Achieving 2 years of EFS had no impact on OS in the earlier era, their findings further show.
In Era 1, the 98 patients who achieved EFS24 went on to have inferior OS compared with the general population, while in Era 2, the 99 patients achieving EFS24 had similar OS compared with the general population.
This was reported as a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in Era 1 of 2.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.92; P < .001). By contrast, the SMR in Era 2 was just 1.31 (95% CI, 0.78-2.07; P = .31).
The risk of dying from lymphoma was lower among patients achieving EFS24 in the more recent Era 2, the results showed.
Among patients in Era 1 achieving EFS24, the primary cause of death was lymphoma-related, and the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 19.8%, versus 6.2% for causes of death unrelated to lymphoma.
By contrast, among patients in Era 2 achieving EFS24, the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 2.1% and 5.5% for other causes.
Favorable prognosis
These findings clearly showed that in one cohort of patients with MCL treated in the recent past, those patients going 2 years without evidence of disease progression or events “have a great prognosis,” said Matthew Matasar, MD, MS, chief of blood disorders, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and RWJBarnabas Health.
However, there are limitations to describing the role of EFS24 in MCL based solely on this single-cohort study, Dr. Matasar said in an interview.
“There’s a lot of heterogeneity in how we treat mantle cell lymphoma,” he said, “so I would just caution generalizing out of a patient population treated one way to populations that may receive quite different therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Wang said he and his coinvestigators have several confirmatory studies in the works that are focused on other groups of patients both inside and outside the United States, to validate of EFS24 as an endpoint.
“We have at least four cohorts to look into this and see whether we can see the same or similar results,” he said in the interview.
Dr. Wang disclosed ties with Incyte, InnoCare, LOXO Oncology, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Genmab, and Kite.
In this era of efficacious treatments for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), patients who survive 2 years sans disease recurrence or progression live nearly as long as age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population, a recent study showed.
Patients with MCL who achieved this endpoint – event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) – also had a low risk of lymphoma-related death, and most often died from unrelated causes, according to results of the prospective cohort study.
Although longer follow-up and confirmation from other study groups are needed, these findings demonstrated a prognostic role for EFS24 in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to the lead author, Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist with Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
As more effective therapies emerge, overall survival (OS) will likely continue to improve, such that EFS24 will may become an important clinical endpoint in MCL frontline therapy, according to Dr. Wang.
“When we counseled patients with newly diagnosed MCL, we used to tell them that this is an aggressive and incurable disease, and patients would feel bad about it, “ Dr. Wang said in an interview.
“Now that we have better therapy, and outcomes are improving,” he continued, “I think it’s important to tell our patients now that we have improved outcomes for patients with this disease, and things are probably going to get better in the future, to always remain hopeful. That’s powerful for our patients to know.”
Two eras of treatment
The current analysis by Dr. Wang and colleagues was based on patients identified in the Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource Cohort Study, a prospective observational study of lymphoma patients evaluated at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa.
The patients were divided into two “eras” of treatment, based on the date of enrollment. Era 1 of enrollment was 2002 to 2009, and Era 2 was 2010 to 2015.
Patients in Era 2 had a substantially improved EFS and OS compared with those in Era 1, according to a previous report from Dr. Wang and coauthors.
Those improved treatment outcomes were likely due to advances in frontline immunochemotherapy, the authors said in that report. In particular, they pointed to the use of highly effective induction regimens containing high-dose cytarabine in patients who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation, and the combined use of rituximab-bendamustine in patients who were not eligible for transplant.
In addition, the increased use of salvage treatments such as lenalidomide and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors has likely contributed to improvements in outcomes across eras, Dr. Wang and coauthors said in the present report, which looks more closely at the prognostic role of the EFS24 endpoint in Era 1 and Era 2 patients.
The five-year OS for patients diagnosed in Era 2 was 68.4%, compared with 59.2% in Era 1, the authors reported.
Achieving 2 years of EFS had no impact on OS in the earlier era, their findings further show.
In Era 1, the 98 patients who achieved EFS24 went on to have inferior OS compared with the general population, while in Era 2, the 99 patients achieving EFS24 had similar OS compared with the general population.
This was reported as a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in Era 1 of 2.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.92; P < .001). By contrast, the SMR in Era 2 was just 1.31 (95% CI, 0.78-2.07; P = .31).
The risk of dying from lymphoma was lower among patients achieving EFS24 in the more recent Era 2, the results showed.
Among patients in Era 1 achieving EFS24, the primary cause of death was lymphoma-related, and the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 19.8%, versus 6.2% for causes of death unrelated to lymphoma.
By contrast, among patients in Era 2 achieving EFS24, the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 2.1% and 5.5% for other causes.
Favorable prognosis
These findings clearly showed that in one cohort of patients with MCL treated in the recent past, those patients going 2 years without evidence of disease progression or events “have a great prognosis,” said Matthew Matasar, MD, MS, chief of blood disorders, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and RWJBarnabas Health.
However, there are limitations to describing the role of EFS24 in MCL based solely on this single-cohort study, Dr. Matasar said in an interview.
“There’s a lot of heterogeneity in how we treat mantle cell lymphoma,” he said, “so I would just caution generalizing out of a patient population treated one way to populations that may receive quite different therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Wang said he and his coinvestigators have several confirmatory studies in the works that are focused on other groups of patients both inside and outside the United States, to validate of EFS24 as an endpoint.
“We have at least four cohorts to look into this and see whether we can see the same or similar results,” he said in the interview.
Dr. Wang disclosed ties with Incyte, InnoCare, LOXO Oncology, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Genmab, and Kite.
In this era of efficacious treatments for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), patients who survive 2 years sans disease recurrence or progression live nearly as long as age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population, a recent study showed.
Patients with MCL who achieved this endpoint – event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) – also had a low risk of lymphoma-related death, and most often died from unrelated causes, according to results of the prospective cohort study.
Although longer follow-up and confirmation from other study groups are needed, these findings demonstrated a prognostic role for EFS24 in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to the lead author, Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist with Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
As more effective therapies emerge, overall survival (OS) will likely continue to improve, such that EFS24 will may become an important clinical endpoint in MCL frontline therapy, according to Dr. Wang.
“When we counseled patients with newly diagnosed MCL, we used to tell them that this is an aggressive and incurable disease, and patients would feel bad about it, “ Dr. Wang said in an interview.
“Now that we have better therapy, and outcomes are improving,” he continued, “I think it’s important to tell our patients now that we have improved outcomes for patients with this disease, and things are probably going to get better in the future, to always remain hopeful. That’s powerful for our patients to know.”
Two eras of treatment
The current analysis by Dr. Wang and colleagues was based on patients identified in the Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource Cohort Study, a prospective observational study of lymphoma patients evaluated at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa.
The patients were divided into two “eras” of treatment, based on the date of enrollment. Era 1 of enrollment was 2002 to 2009, and Era 2 was 2010 to 2015.
Patients in Era 2 had a substantially improved EFS and OS compared with those in Era 1, according to a previous report from Dr. Wang and coauthors.
Those improved treatment outcomes were likely due to advances in frontline immunochemotherapy, the authors said in that report. In particular, they pointed to the use of highly effective induction regimens containing high-dose cytarabine in patients who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation, and the combined use of rituximab-bendamustine in patients who were not eligible for transplant.
In addition, the increased use of salvage treatments such as lenalidomide and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors has likely contributed to improvements in outcomes across eras, Dr. Wang and coauthors said in the present report, which looks more closely at the prognostic role of the EFS24 endpoint in Era 1 and Era 2 patients.
The five-year OS for patients diagnosed in Era 2 was 68.4%, compared with 59.2% in Era 1, the authors reported.
Achieving 2 years of EFS had no impact on OS in the earlier era, their findings further show.
In Era 1, the 98 patients who achieved EFS24 went on to have inferior OS compared with the general population, while in Era 2, the 99 patients achieving EFS24 had similar OS compared with the general population.
This was reported as a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in Era 1 of 2.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.92; P < .001). By contrast, the SMR in Era 2 was just 1.31 (95% CI, 0.78-2.07; P = .31).
The risk of dying from lymphoma was lower among patients achieving EFS24 in the more recent Era 2, the results showed.
Among patients in Era 1 achieving EFS24, the primary cause of death was lymphoma-related, and the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 19.8%, versus 6.2% for causes of death unrelated to lymphoma.
By contrast, among patients in Era 2 achieving EFS24, the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 2.1% and 5.5% for other causes.
Favorable prognosis
These findings clearly showed that in one cohort of patients with MCL treated in the recent past, those patients going 2 years without evidence of disease progression or events “have a great prognosis,” said Matthew Matasar, MD, MS, chief of blood disorders, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and RWJBarnabas Health.
However, there are limitations to describing the role of EFS24 in MCL based solely on this single-cohort study, Dr. Matasar said in an interview.
“There’s a lot of heterogeneity in how we treat mantle cell lymphoma,” he said, “so I would just caution generalizing out of a patient population treated one way to populations that may receive quite different therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Wang said he and his coinvestigators have several confirmatory studies in the works that are focused on other groups of patients both inside and outside the United States, to validate of EFS24 as an endpoint.
“We have at least four cohorts to look into this and see whether we can see the same or similar results,” he said in the interview.
Dr. Wang disclosed ties with Incyte, InnoCare, LOXO Oncology, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Genmab, and Kite.
FROM CLINICAL LYMPHOMA, MYELOMA AND LEUKEMIA
CLL phase 3 study: Zanubrutinib bests ibrutinib
Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher for zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib, according to investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
Cardiac safety was also better with zanubrutinib, the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, compared to ibrutinib, the first-in-class Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Dr. Brown noted that ibrutinib has “transformed CLL therapy,” despite toxicity and pharmacokinetics issues which limit its use.
Even in patients with high-risk CLL, there was a clear benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, who presented final results of ALPINE in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“I am not aware of a patient population in which I would select ibrutinib as compared to zanubrutinib,” Dr. Brown said in a press briefing on the study at the meeting.
Although not currently indicated in CLL, zanubrutinib received Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in late 2019, followed by indications in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia and relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma in 2021.
But the choice of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory CLL is already supported in current clinical practice guidelines, Dr. Brown said.
The most recent CLL guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), updated Aug 30, describe zanubrutinib as a “preferred” regimen, while ibrutinib falls into the category of an “other recommended regimen.”
The zanubrutinib recommendation is category 1, meaning that it is based on high-level evidence, with uniform consensus that the intervention in appropriate, according to NCCN.
Improved safety, efficacy
Side effects have proved to be an Achilles heel for ibrutinib, which first received an FDA approval in CLL in 2014.
Across CLL studies, between 16% and 23% of CLL patients have discontinued ibrutinib treatment because of toxicities, Dr. Brown, the ALPINE investigator, said at the ASH meeting.
In addition, pharmacokinetic data suggest that at certain times between doses, the amount of ibrutinib in a patient’s system may drop below the level needed to effectively inhibit the target protein, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase.
By contrast, zanubrutinib is designed to have greater specificity for that target protein, Dr. Brown said. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetic studies have demonstrated concentrations of drug consistently above the level needed for effective inhibition – an effect that suggests potential for greater efficacy.
In the ALPINE study, 652 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) were randomized to zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib once daily.
With a mean follow-up of 29.6 months, zanubrutinib PFS was significantly superior to ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 and 95% confidence interval (CI) between 0.49 and 0.86.
Estimated PFS at 2 years was 79.5% in the zanubrutinib arm and 67.3% for ibrutinib, according to the ALPINE data presented.
However, the difference in PFS in favor of zanubrutinib was even more pronounced in high-risk patients, according to Dr. Brown. Among patients with chromosome 17 deletion or TP53 mutation, the PFS at 2 years was 77.6% for zanubrutinib and just 55.7% for ibrutinib, with an HR of 0.52 and 95% CI of 0.30 to 0.88.
Zanubrutinib’s safety profile was superior to ibrutinib, with serious adverse rates of 42.0% and 50.0%, respectively, and significantly lower cardiac toxicity for zanubrutinib, according to the investigators’ presentation.
Only 5.2% of patients on zanubrutinib had atrial fibrillation/flutter on study, compared to 13.3% for ibrutinib (P = .0004), while rates of serious cardiac adverse events were 1.9% and 7.7% , respectively.
Impressive benefit
The PFS benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib was “quite impressive” in ALPINE, and in line with pharmacokinetic differences observed between Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, said Stefan K. Barta, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“In the lab, [second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors] do hit the target better, but better doesn’t necessarily translate into good outcomes for patients – that’s a different question,” Dr. Barta said in an interview
However, the safety findings of ALPINE are particularly relevant, according to Dr. Barta, since today, many patients with CLL will receive treatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors indefinitely.
In ALPINE results presented at ASH, zanubrutinib-treated patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation and serious cardiac events, as well as zero deaths due to cardiac events, compared to six deaths in the ibrutinib group.
“Side effects make a big difference if you are on something for a long time,” Dr. Barta said. “It’s certainly a huge difference already, but then if you get the added bonus of also having an improvement in PFS, that’s a win-win.”
Dr. Brown reported disclosures related to Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel, Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, Verastem/Secura Bio, Sun, TG Therapeutics, Invectys, Grifols Worldwide Operations, Hutchmed, iOnctura, and Pharmacyclics.
Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher for zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib, according to investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
Cardiac safety was also better with zanubrutinib, the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, compared to ibrutinib, the first-in-class Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Dr. Brown noted that ibrutinib has “transformed CLL therapy,” despite toxicity and pharmacokinetics issues which limit its use.
Even in patients with high-risk CLL, there was a clear benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, who presented final results of ALPINE in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“I am not aware of a patient population in which I would select ibrutinib as compared to zanubrutinib,” Dr. Brown said in a press briefing on the study at the meeting.
Although not currently indicated in CLL, zanubrutinib received Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in late 2019, followed by indications in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia and relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma in 2021.
But the choice of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory CLL is already supported in current clinical practice guidelines, Dr. Brown said.
The most recent CLL guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), updated Aug 30, describe zanubrutinib as a “preferred” regimen, while ibrutinib falls into the category of an “other recommended regimen.”
The zanubrutinib recommendation is category 1, meaning that it is based on high-level evidence, with uniform consensus that the intervention in appropriate, according to NCCN.
Improved safety, efficacy
Side effects have proved to be an Achilles heel for ibrutinib, which first received an FDA approval in CLL in 2014.
Across CLL studies, between 16% and 23% of CLL patients have discontinued ibrutinib treatment because of toxicities, Dr. Brown, the ALPINE investigator, said at the ASH meeting.
In addition, pharmacokinetic data suggest that at certain times between doses, the amount of ibrutinib in a patient’s system may drop below the level needed to effectively inhibit the target protein, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase.
By contrast, zanubrutinib is designed to have greater specificity for that target protein, Dr. Brown said. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetic studies have demonstrated concentrations of drug consistently above the level needed for effective inhibition – an effect that suggests potential for greater efficacy.
In the ALPINE study, 652 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) were randomized to zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib once daily.
With a mean follow-up of 29.6 months, zanubrutinib PFS was significantly superior to ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 and 95% confidence interval (CI) between 0.49 and 0.86.
Estimated PFS at 2 years was 79.5% in the zanubrutinib arm and 67.3% for ibrutinib, according to the ALPINE data presented.
However, the difference in PFS in favor of zanubrutinib was even more pronounced in high-risk patients, according to Dr. Brown. Among patients with chromosome 17 deletion or TP53 mutation, the PFS at 2 years was 77.6% for zanubrutinib and just 55.7% for ibrutinib, with an HR of 0.52 and 95% CI of 0.30 to 0.88.
Zanubrutinib’s safety profile was superior to ibrutinib, with serious adverse rates of 42.0% and 50.0%, respectively, and significantly lower cardiac toxicity for zanubrutinib, according to the investigators’ presentation.
Only 5.2% of patients on zanubrutinib had atrial fibrillation/flutter on study, compared to 13.3% for ibrutinib (P = .0004), while rates of serious cardiac adverse events were 1.9% and 7.7% , respectively.
Impressive benefit
The PFS benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib was “quite impressive” in ALPINE, and in line with pharmacokinetic differences observed between Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, said Stefan K. Barta, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“In the lab, [second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors] do hit the target better, but better doesn’t necessarily translate into good outcomes for patients – that’s a different question,” Dr. Barta said in an interview
However, the safety findings of ALPINE are particularly relevant, according to Dr. Barta, since today, many patients with CLL will receive treatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors indefinitely.
In ALPINE results presented at ASH, zanubrutinib-treated patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation and serious cardiac events, as well as zero deaths due to cardiac events, compared to six deaths in the ibrutinib group.
“Side effects make a big difference if you are on something for a long time,” Dr. Barta said. “It’s certainly a huge difference already, but then if you get the added bonus of also having an improvement in PFS, that’s a win-win.”
Dr. Brown reported disclosures related to Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel, Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, Verastem/Secura Bio, Sun, TG Therapeutics, Invectys, Grifols Worldwide Operations, Hutchmed, iOnctura, and Pharmacyclics.
Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly higher for zanubrutinib versus ibrutinib, according to investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
Cardiac safety was also better with zanubrutinib, the second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, compared to ibrutinib, the first-in-class Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Dr. Brown noted that ibrutinib has “transformed CLL therapy,” despite toxicity and pharmacokinetics issues which limit its use.
Even in patients with high-risk CLL, there was a clear benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, who presented final results of ALPINE in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
“I am not aware of a patient population in which I would select ibrutinib as compared to zanubrutinib,” Dr. Brown said in a press briefing on the study at the meeting.
Although not currently indicated in CLL, zanubrutinib received Food and Drug Administration approval for treatment of relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in late 2019, followed by indications in Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia and relapsed/refractory marginal zone lymphoma in 2021.
But the choice of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib in relapsed/refractory CLL is already supported in current clinical practice guidelines, Dr. Brown said.
The most recent CLL guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), updated Aug 30, describe zanubrutinib as a “preferred” regimen, while ibrutinib falls into the category of an “other recommended regimen.”
The zanubrutinib recommendation is category 1, meaning that it is based on high-level evidence, with uniform consensus that the intervention in appropriate, according to NCCN.
Improved safety, efficacy
Side effects have proved to be an Achilles heel for ibrutinib, which first received an FDA approval in CLL in 2014.
Across CLL studies, between 16% and 23% of CLL patients have discontinued ibrutinib treatment because of toxicities, Dr. Brown, the ALPINE investigator, said at the ASH meeting.
In addition, pharmacokinetic data suggest that at certain times between doses, the amount of ibrutinib in a patient’s system may drop below the level needed to effectively inhibit the target protein, Bruton’s tyrosine kinase.
By contrast, zanubrutinib is designed to have greater specificity for that target protein, Dr. Brown said. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetic studies have demonstrated concentrations of drug consistently above the level needed for effective inhibition – an effect that suggests potential for greater efficacy.
In the ALPINE study, 652 patients with relapsed/refractory CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) were randomized to zanubrutinib 160 mg twice daily or ibrutinib once daily.
With a mean follow-up of 29.6 months, zanubrutinib PFS was significantly superior to ibrutinib, according to Dr. Brown, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 and 95% confidence interval (CI) between 0.49 and 0.86.
Estimated PFS at 2 years was 79.5% in the zanubrutinib arm and 67.3% for ibrutinib, according to the ALPINE data presented.
However, the difference in PFS in favor of zanubrutinib was even more pronounced in high-risk patients, according to Dr. Brown. Among patients with chromosome 17 deletion or TP53 mutation, the PFS at 2 years was 77.6% for zanubrutinib and just 55.7% for ibrutinib, with an HR of 0.52 and 95% CI of 0.30 to 0.88.
Zanubrutinib’s safety profile was superior to ibrutinib, with serious adverse rates of 42.0% and 50.0%, respectively, and significantly lower cardiac toxicity for zanubrutinib, according to the investigators’ presentation.
Only 5.2% of patients on zanubrutinib had atrial fibrillation/flutter on study, compared to 13.3% for ibrutinib (P = .0004), while rates of serious cardiac adverse events were 1.9% and 7.7% , respectively.
Impressive benefit
The PFS benefit of zanubrutinib over ibrutinib was “quite impressive” in ALPINE, and in line with pharmacokinetic differences observed between Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors, said Stefan K. Barta, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“In the lab, [second-generation Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors] do hit the target better, but better doesn’t necessarily translate into good outcomes for patients – that’s a different question,” Dr. Barta said in an interview
However, the safety findings of ALPINE are particularly relevant, according to Dr. Barta, since today, many patients with CLL will receive treatment with Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors indefinitely.
In ALPINE results presented at ASH, zanubrutinib-treated patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation and serious cardiac events, as well as zero deaths due to cardiac events, compared to six deaths in the ibrutinib group.
“Side effects make a big difference if you are on something for a long time,” Dr. Barta said. “It’s certainly a huge difference already, but then if you get the added bonus of also having an improvement in PFS, that’s a win-win.”
Dr. Brown reported disclosures related to Abbvie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel, Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, Verastem/Secura Bio, Sun, TG Therapeutics, Invectys, Grifols Worldwide Operations, Hutchmed, iOnctura, and Pharmacyclics.
FROM ASH 2022
Transplant provides no clear survival benefit in real-world MCL study
In younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma treated in U.S. community oncology settings in recent years, use of autologous transplant was not associated with improved survival, results of a large observational study show.
Autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) use was not linked overall survival (OS), according to the authors of the retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) between 2011 and 2021.
This lack of a clear survival benefit with use of ASCT is an “apparent contradiction” with prospective data from earlier clinical trials, authors wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology
However, they added, the finding is consistent with several recent registry analyses that also do not support a link between ASCT and overall survival in patients with MCL.
Although these findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the study, the results at least suggest that it is ethical to do research that doesn’t involve ASCT, study author Peter Martin, MD, said in an interview.
Furthermore, emerging data from the randomized TRIANGLE study from the European MCL Network suggest the potential for ASCT to be replaced by maintenance therapy with the Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, according to Dr. Martin, associate professor with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“There are probably a lot of questions that will come up there, but essentially the barriers to research that do not include ASCT have been moved away, and we can go ahead and study non-ASCT (approaches) in younger patients,” Dr. Martin said.
No clear OS benefit
In current guidelines, recommended initial therapy for MCL patients younger than 65 years includes use of high-dose cytarabine-containing chemoimmunotherapy induction, followed by ASCT as consolidation, and then rituximab maintenance, Dr. Martin and coauthors say in their report.
Their primary analysis was based on the Flatiron Health database, which is derived from electronic medical records, mostly in U.S. community oncology practices, according to the report.
The researchers identified 1,274 patients under the age of 65 with a record of first-line treatment for MCL, and of those, 962 (or 76%) were considered eligible for ASCT.
Among ASCT-eligible patients, there was no significant association between receipt of ASCT and OS, with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.18). The 3-year OS was 88% for patients receiving ASCT and similarly, 84% for those who did not, according to authors.
Likewise, there was no association between ASCT and real-world time to next treatment, an endpoint defined as time from start of first-line therapy to subsequent treatment or death, the report says.
Findings in perspective
The lack of clear survival benefit with ASCT in this and other recent observational studies may be explained in part by improvements in induction regimens, according to Timothy Fenske, MD, professor in the department of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
“As our induction regimens have improved, it is very possible that the benefit for autologous transplantation will become less apparent,” Dr. Fenske said in an interview.
The discussion over ASCT in MCL is expected to evolve further in light of findings from TRIANGLE and EA4151, a randomized phase 3 trial of rituximab with or without ASCT specifically in patients with minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative MCL in first complete remission.
“If that study shows that the MRD-negative patients do not have much benefit from autologous transplantation,” Dr. Fenske said, “I think these studies will all be giving the same message – that autologous transplantation was beneficial back when induction regimens were poor (for example, CHOP without rituximab), but will have much less benefit in patients receiving modern inductions, which by and large will get more patients to be MRD negative.”
However, subgroup analyses of those TRIANGLE will be important, he added, since some patients may still benefit from ASCT, such as younger patients who remain MRD positive, or who have certain other high-risk molecular features.
Dr. Martin reported consulting or advisory roles with Janssen, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Verastem, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Epizyme, Merck, MorphoSys, and Takeda. He reported institutional research funding from Karyopharm Therapeutics.
In younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma treated in U.S. community oncology settings in recent years, use of autologous transplant was not associated with improved survival, results of a large observational study show.
Autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) use was not linked overall survival (OS), according to the authors of the retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) between 2011 and 2021.
This lack of a clear survival benefit with use of ASCT is an “apparent contradiction” with prospective data from earlier clinical trials, authors wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology
However, they added, the finding is consistent with several recent registry analyses that also do not support a link between ASCT and overall survival in patients with MCL.
Although these findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the study, the results at least suggest that it is ethical to do research that doesn’t involve ASCT, study author Peter Martin, MD, said in an interview.
Furthermore, emerging data from the randomized TRIANGLE study from the European MCL Network suggest the potential for ASCT to be replaced by maintenance therapy with the Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, according to Dr. Martin, associate professor with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“There are probably a lot of questions that will come up there, but essentially the barriers to research that do not include ASCT have been moved away, and we can go ahead and study non-ASCT (approaches) in younger patients,” Dr. Martin said.
No clear OS benefit
In current guidelines, recommended initial therapy for MCL patients younger than 65 years includes use of high-dose cytarabine-containing chemoimmunotherapy induction, followed by ASCT as consolidation, and then rituximab maintenance, Dr. Martin and coauthors say in their report.
Their primary analysis was based on the Flatiron Health database, which is derived from electronic medical records, mostly in U.S. community oncology practices, according to the report.
The researchers identified 1,274 patients under the age of 65 with a record of first-line treatment for MCL, and of those, 962 (or 76%) were considered eligible for ASCT.
Among ASCT-eligible patients, there was no significant association between receipt of ASCT and OS, with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.18). The 3-year OS was 88% for patients receiving ASCT and similarly, 84% for those who did not, according to authors.
Likewise, there was no association between ASCT and real-world time to next treatment, an endpoint defined as time from start of first-line therapy to subsequent treatment or death, the report says.
Findings in perspective
The lack of clear survival benefit with ASCT in this and other recent observational studies may be explained in part by improvements in induction regimens, according to Timothy Fenske, MD, professor in the department of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
“As our induction regimens have improved, it is very possible that the benefit for autologous transplantation will become less apparent,” Dr. Fenske said in an interview.
The discussion over ASCT in MCL is expected to evolve further in light of findings from TRIANGLE and EA4151, a randomized phase 3 trial of rituximab with or without ASCT specifically in patients with minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative MCL in first complete remission.
“If that study shows that the MRD-negative patients do not have much benefit from autologous transplantation,” Dr. Fenske said, “I think these studies will all be giving the same message – that autologous transplantation was beneficial back when induction regimens were poor (for example, CHOP without rituximab), but will have much less benefit in patients receiving modern inductions, which by and large will get more patients to be MRD negative.”
However, subgroup analyses of those TRIANGLE will be important, he added, since some patients may still benefit from ASCT, such as younger patients who remain MRD positive, or who have certain other high-risk molecular features.
Dr. Martin reported consulting or advisory roles with Janssen, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Verastem, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Epizyme, Merck, MorphoSys, and Takeda. He reported institutional research funding from Karyopharm Therapeutics.
In younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma treated in U.S. community oncology settings in recent years, use of autologous transplant was not associated with improved survival, results of a large observational study show.
Autologous stem-cell transplant (ASCT) use was not linked overall survival (OS), according to the authors of the retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) between 2011 and 2021.
This lack of a clear survival benefit with use of ASCT is an “apparent contradiction” with prospective data from earlier clinical trials, authors wrote in the Journal of Clinical Oncology
However, they added, the finding is consistent with several recent registry analyses that also do not support a link between ASCT and overall survival in patients with MCL.
Although these findings are limited by the retrospective nature of the study, the results at least suggest that it is ethical to do research that doesn’t involve ASCT, study author Peter Martin, MD, said in an interview.
Furthermore, emerging data from the randomized TRIANGLE study from the European MCL Network suggest the potential for ASCT to be replaced by maintenance therapy with the Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, according to Dr. Martin, associate professor with Weill Cornell Medicine, New York.
“There are probably a lot of questions that will come up there, but essentially the barriers to research that do not include ASCT have been moved away, and we can go ahead and study non-ASCT (approaches) in younger patients,” Dr. Martin said.
No clear OS benefit
In current guidelines, recommended initial therapy for MCL patients younger than 65 years includes use of high-dose cytarabine-containing chemoimmunotherapy induction, followed by ASCT as consolidation, and then rituximab maintenance, Dr. Martin and coauthors say in their report.
Their primary analysis was based on the Flatiron Health database, which is derived from electronic medical records, mostly in U.S. community oncology practices, according to the report.
The researchers identified 1,274 patients under the age of 65 with a record of first-line treatment for MCL, and of those, 962 (or 76%) were considered eligible for ASCT.
Among ASCT-eligible patients, there was no significant association between receipt of ASCT and OS, with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.18). The 3-year OS was 88% for patients receiving ASCT and similarly, 84% for those who did not, according to authors.
Likewise, there was no association between ASCT and real-world time to next treatment, an endpoint defined as time from start of first-line therapy to subsequent treatment or death, the report says.
Findings in perspective
The lack of clear survival benefit with ASCT in this and other recent observational studies may be explained in part by improvements in induction regimens, according to Timothy Fenske, MD, professor in the department of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.
“As our induction regimens have improved, it is very possible that the benefit for autologous transplantation will become less apparent,” Dr. Fenske said in an interview.
The discussion over ASCT in MCL is expected to evolve further in light of findings from TRIANGLE and EA4151, a randomized phase 3 trial of rituximab with or without ASCT specifically in patients with minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative MCL in first complete remission.
“If that study shows that the MRD-negative patients do not have much benefit from autologous transplantation,” Dr. Fenske said, “I think these studies will all be giving the same message – that autologous transplantation was beneficial back when induction regimens were poor (for example, CHOP without rituximab), but will have much less benefit in patients receiving modern inductions, which by and large will get more patients to be MRD negative.”
However, subgroup analyses of those TRIANGLE will be important, he added, since some patients may still benefit from ASCT, such as younger patients who remain MRD positive, or who have certain other high-risk molecular features.
Dr. Martin reported consulting or advisory roles with Janssen, BeiGene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Verastem, ADC Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Epizyme, Merck, MorphoSys, and Takeda. He reported institutional research funding from Karyopharm Therapeutics.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Blame MCL, not transplantation, for late effects?
In patients with mantle cell lymphoma, rates of respiratory disease, blood disorders, and infectious diseases do not vary according to the intensity of treatment given, the results of a large retrospective analysis suggested.
The rate of hospitalization among MCL patients was also high, but again, did not differ between ASCT and non-ASCT subgroups in the study, which included adult patients younger than age 70 with MCL who were treated in Sweden between 2000 and 2014.
Late effects independent of ASCT
These findings may have implications for clinicians tempted to avoid intensive first-line treatment including ASCT because it is “demanding” and may cause late effects, study authors wrote in a research article that appeared in Blood Advances.
In fact, the great majority of long-term health care needs in patients with MCL appear to be related to the lymphoma in itself, according to study senior author Ingrid Glimelius, MD, PhD, senior consultant and professor in oncology in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“You do have to keep your eyes open for complications like blood disorders, infections, and respiratory (disorders),” Dr. Glimelius said in an interview. “But it’s not the transplant that adds to the extra toxicity. So don’t be afraid of giving that, if you think that can prolong your patient’s remission.”
Whither transplantation?
While these data may advance the discussion over the relative safety of ASCT, she added, the paradigm is changing to ask a different question: Does the patient need a transplant, or not?
Dr. Glimelius said she was looking forward to results of TRIANGLE, a randomized, open-label, three-arm study initiated by the European MCL Network. This study compares standard first-line treatment including ASCT to the kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in 2013 for patients previously treated for MCL.
In the TRIANGLE study, younger patients with MCL were randomized to the standard first-line treatment, standard treatment plus ibrutinib, or ibrutinib alone.
A preliminary report on the study stated that the current standard is “not superior” to the new ibrutinib-containing regimen without ASCT, though more follow-up is needed.
Full results of the study are expected to be presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 11.
“In my opinion, our data will be practice-changing,” said lead investigator Martin Dreyling, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and head of the lymphoma program at the University of Munich Hospital.
Little known about late effects
In the meantime, clinicians may be reassured by the current data from Dr. Glimelius and coauthors, which showed that late effects varied little by treatment choice.
That’s important, Dr. Glimelius said, because even as survival is improving and novel targeted drugs are taking the stage, knowledge about the late effects of MCL remains limited.
Their population-based study included all 620 patients with MCL in the Swedish Lymphoma Register who were 18-69 years of age and diagnosed between 2000 and 2014. Records were found for 620 patients, of whom 247 received high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT.
Compared with healthy individuals with no MCL, the patients with MCL had a high rate of specialist visits and hospital visits, according to the report. The MCL patients also had high risks of infections, respiratory complications, and blood disorders relative to the healthy subjects.
Lack of differences between arms
The key finding of the report, though, is the lack of significant differences in the rate of complications between the ASCT and non–ASCT-treated patients.
Relative to healthy subjects, patients undergoing ASCT and not undergoing ASCT had a higher risk of infections, with hazard ratios of 5.62 (95% confidence interval, 4.20-7.52) and 4.66 (95% CI, 3.62-5.00), respectively.
Relative risks of respiratory complications were also similar, with HRs of 4.38 and 5.26, respectively, and overlapping CIs. Likewise, the risk of blood disorders was not statistically different, with HRs of 9.84 and 5.80, respectively, but again with overlapping CIs.
Outpatient visits, inpatient visits, and bed days were likewise similar between ASCT and non-ASCT arms.
In fact, most patients died of their lymphoma, rather than a treatment complication or another cause of death, the investigators noted in their report.
Dr. Glimelius reported receiving honoraria from Janssen. Coauthors on the paper reported disclosures related to Janssen, Gilead, Celgene, Roche, Acerta. and AbbVie.
Correction, 11/21/22: The photo caption misstated Dr. Ingrid Glimelius' name.
In patients with mantle cell lymphoma, rates of respiratory disease, blood disorders, and infectious diseases do not vary according to the intensity of treatment given, the results of a large retrospective analysis suggested.
The rate of hospitalization among MCL patients was also high, but again, did not differ between ASCT and non-ASCT subgroups in the study, which included adult patients younger than age 70 with MCL who were treated in Sweden between 2000 and 2014.
Late effects independent of ASCT
These findings may have implications for clinicians tempted to avoid intensive first-line treatment including ASCT because it is “demanding” and may cause late effects, study authors wrote in a research article that appeared in Blood Advances.
In fact, the great majority of long-term health care needs in patients with MCL appear to be related to the lymphoma in itself, according to study senior author Ingrid Glimelius, MD, PhD, senior consultant and professor in oncology in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“You do have to keep your eyes open for complications like blood disorders, infections, and respiratory (disorders),” Dr. Glimelius said in an interview. “But it’s not the transplant that adds to the extra toxicity. So don’t be afraid of giving that, if you think that can prolong your patient’s remission.”
Whither transplantation?
While these data may advance the discussion over the relative safety of ASCT, she added, the paradigm is changing to ask a different question: Does the patient need a transplant, or not?
Dr. Glimelius said she was looking forward to results of TRIANGLE, a randomized, open-label, three-arm study initiated by the European MCL Network. This study compares standard first-line treatment including ASCT to the kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in 2013 for patients previously treated for MCL.
In the TRIANGLE study, younger patients with MCL were randomized to the standard first-line treatment, standard treatment plus ibrutinib, or ibrutinib alone.
A preliminary report on the study stated that the current standard is “not superior” to the new ibrutinib-containing regimen without ASCT, though more follow-up is needed.
Full results of the study are expected to be presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 11.
“In my opinion, our data will be practice-changing,” said lead investigator Martin Dreyling, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and head of the lymphoma program at the University of Munich Hospital.
Little known about late effects
In the meantime, clinicians may be reassured by the current data from Dr. Glimelius and coauthors, which showed that late effects varied little by treatment choice.
That’s important, Dr. Glimelius said, because even as survival is improving and novel targeted drugs are taking the stage, knowledge about the late effects of MCL remains limited.
Their population-based study included all 620 patients with MCL in the Swedish Lymphoma Register who were 18-69 years of age and diagnosed between 2000 and 2014. Records were found for 620 patients, of whom 247 received high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT.
Compared with healthy individuals with no MCL, the patients with MCL had a high rate of specialist visits and hospital visits, according to the report. The MCL patients also had high risks of infections, respiratory complications, and blood disorders relative to the healthy subjects.
Lack of differences between arms
The key finding of the report, though, is the lack of significant differences in the rate of complications between the ASCT and non–ASCT-treated patients.
Relative to healthy subjects, patients undergoing ASCT and not undergoing ASCT had a higher risk of infections, with hazard ratios of 5.62 (95% confidence interval, 4.20-7.52) and 4.66 (95% CI, 3.62-5.00), respectively.
Relative risks of respiratory complications were also similar, with HRs of 4.38 and 5.26, respectively, and overlapping CIs. Likewise, the risk of blood disorders was not statistically different, with HRs of 9.84 and 5.80, respectively, but again with overlapping CIs.
Outpatient visits, inpatient visits, and bed days were likewise similar between ASCT and non-ASCT arms.
In fact, most patients died of their lymphoma, rather than a treatment complication or another cause of death, the investigators noted in their report.
Dr. Glimelius reported receiving honoraria from Janssen. Coauthors on the paper reported disclosures related to Janssen, Gilead, Celgene, Roche, Acerta. and AbbVie.
Correction, 11/21/22: The photo caption misstated Dr. Ingrid Glimelius' name.
In patients with mantle cell lymphoma, rates of respiratory disease, blood disorders, and infectious diseases do not vary according to the intensity of treatment given, the results of a large retrospective analysis suggested.
The rate of hospitalization among MCL patients was also high, but again, did not differ between ASCT and non-ASCT subgroups in the study, which included adult patients younger than age 70 with MCL who were treated in Sweden between 2000 and 2014.
Late effects independent of ASCT
These findings may have implications for clinicians tempted to avoid intensive first-line treatment including ASCT because it is “demanding” and may cause late effects, study authors wrote in a research article that appeared in Blood Advances.
In fact, the great majority of long-term health care needs in patients with MCL appear to be related to the lymphoma in itself, according to study senior author Ingrid Glimelius, MD, PhD, senior consultant and professor in oncology in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“You do have to keep your eyes open for complications like blood disorders, infections, and respiratory (disorders),” Dr. Glimelius said in an interview. “But it’s not the transplant that adds to the extra toxicity. So don’t be afraid of giving that, if you think that can prolong your patient’s remission.”
Whither transplantation?
While these data may advance the discussion over the relative safety of ASCT, she added, the paradigm is changing to ask a different question: Does the patient need a transplant, or not?
Dr. Glimelius said she was looking forward to results of TRIANGLE, a randomized, open-label, three-arm study initiated by the European MCL Network. This study compares standard first-line treatment including ASCT to the kinase inhibitor ibrutinib, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in 2013 for patients previously treated for MCL.
In the TRIANGLE study, younger patients with MCL were randomized to the standard first-line treatment, standard treatment plus ibrutinib, or ibrutinib alone.
A preliminary report on the study stated that the current standard is “not superior” to the new ibrutinib-containing regimen without ASCT, though more follow-up is needed.
Full results of the study are expected to be presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting on December 11.
“In my opinion, our data will be practice-changing,” said lead investigator Martin Dreyling, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and head of the lymphoma program at the University of Munich Hospital.
Little known about late effects
In the meantime, clinicians may be reassured by the current data from Dr. Glimelius and coauthors, which showed that late effects varied little by treatment choice.
That’s important, Dr. Glimelius said, because even as survival is improving and novel targeted drugs are taking the stage, knowledge about the late effects of MCL remains limited.
Their population-based study included all 620 patients with MCL in the Swedish Lymphoma Register who were 18-69 years of age and diagnosed between 2000 and 2014. Records were found for 620 patients, of whom 247 received high-dose chemotherapy with ASCT.
Compared with healthy individuals with no MCL, the patients with MCL had a high rate of specialist visits and hospital visits, according to the report. The MCL patients also had high risks of infections, respiratory complications, and blood disorders relative to the healthy subjects.
Lack of differences between arms
The key finding of the report, though, is the lack of significant differences in the rate of complications between the ASCT and non–ASCT-treated patients.
Relative to healthy subjects, patients undergoing ASCT and not undergoing ASCT had a higher risk of infections, with hazard ratios of 5.62 (95% confidence interval, 4.20-7.52) and 4.66 (95% CI, 3.62-5.00), respectively.
Relative risks of respiratory complications were also similar, with HRs of 4.38 and 5.26, respectively, and overlapping CIs. Likewise, the risk of blood disorders was not statistically different, with HRs of 9.84 and 5.80, respectively, but again with overlapping CIs.
Outpatient visits, inpatient visits, and bed days were likewise similar between ASCT and non-ASCT arms.
In fact, most patients died of their lymphoma, rather than a treatment complication or another cause of death, the investigators noted in their report.
Dr. Glimelius reported receiving honoraria from Janssen. Coauthors on the paper reported disclosures related to Janssen, Gilead, Celgene, Roche, Acerta. and AbbVie.
Correction, 11/21/22: The photo caption misstated Dr. Ingrid Glimelius' name.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
Phase 3 trial yields better way to predict MCL outcomes
Single assessments of minimal residual disease (MRD) effectively prognosticated relapse risks in patients with MCL treated with chemoimmunotherapy and transplantation, according to investigators.
However, by evaluating MRD status over time, disease progression could be predicted with greater certainty, according to study lead author Simone Ferrero, MD, assistant professor of hematology at the University of Torino (Italy).
“The most important message is that MRD is predictive, and then in particular, if you want to study MRD, you have to do a repeated MRD analysis in order to have a better picture of the disease course and to determine the prognosis of each single patient,” Dr. Ferrero said in an interview.
Predictive power of MRD
Piers Blombery, MBBS, hematologist and medical lead of the Molecular Hematology Laboratory at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said these study findings illustrate how the predictive power of MRD is enhanced when it is evaluated longitudinally, over the course of a patient’s disease.
“We need to be prepared to have models of MRD that take into account changes in values across time,” Dr. Blombery said in an interview.
“Conventionally, we have looked at single time points in disease, such as end of induction therapy or post autologous stem cell transplant,” said Dr. Blombery, “but we may need now to have more complex models that can integrate values over multiple time points to guide intervention.”
Dr. Blombery, who was not involved in the study, coauthored an independent commentary on the results that was also published in Blood.
Tools to predict relapse
Although initial MCL treatment is often effective, most patients will relapse. Accordingly, there have been considerable efforts to develop tools that identify patients at high risk of relapse, according to Dr. Ferrero and coauthors.
Among these tools is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI), which risk-stratifies patients on the basis of age, performance status, leukocyte count, and lactate dehydrogenase.
More recently, in several published studies, MRD has been demonstrated a high predictive value in MCL. However, the best way to evaluate MRD has yet to be worked out. There are differences in testing methods, sampling (that is, bone marrow versus peripheral blood), and time points that are evaluated.
In some recent studies, investigators have pooled MRD samples taken at different time points, according to Dr. Ferrero and colleagues. Furthermore, there had been no prior systematic attempts to compare the prognostic performance of MRD data evaluated over time, as compared with MRD at a single time point.
Exploiting MRD data
The analysis by Dr. Ferrero and coauthors, which appears in the journal Blood, is a substudy of FIL MCL0208, a recent multicenter, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that demonstrated the benefit of lenalidomide maintenance over observation following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) among 300 patients with MCL in Italy and Portugal.
In the study, investigators monitored MRD in both peripheral blood and bone marrow at 10 fixed time points throughout treatment (including induction, consolidation, post ASCT, and then every 6 months during maintenance and follow-up), yielding 4,351 individual MRD results.
Individual MRD analyses were prognostic in MCL, according to the investigators, with results that were relevant to disease progression right after ASCT, and were most predictive starting at 6 months after ASCT.
However, the best way to exploit the bulk of MRD information that had been collected, investigators said, was a model that combined regularly updated MRD results with MIPI scores.
This MIPI-adjusted model, based on MRD assessed in bone marrow by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR), outperformed both MIPI and a MIPI-adjusted single time-point analysis in terms of predicting time to progression.
The predictive power of the MIPI-adjusted bone marrow RQ-PCR analysis was illustrated by an area under the curve of 0.85-0.87, compared with an AUC of just 0.60-0.63 for classic MIPI analysis, 0.62-0.65 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at a post-ASCT time-point analysis, and 0.74-0.77 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at 6 months from transplant.
Peripheral blood ‘easier to collect’
Although bone marrow analysis performed best in the single-point MRD evaluations, looking at MRD over time greatly improved the predictive power of the peripheral blood MRD results, yielding an AUC up to 0.81, according to the report.
This enhancement of peripheral blood performance is a finding that may have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Ferrero, considering that peripheral blood monitoring is more practical for long-term, repeated MRD monitoring.
“It is interesting, because peripheral blood is easier to collect than bone marrow,” Dr. Ferrero said. “So if you plan in your analysis to monitor MRD in peripheral blood every 6 months, then you can have a predictive value similar to that of one single point in bone marrow.”
Dr. Ferrero provided disclosures related to Janssen, EUSA Pharma, Gilead, Morphosys, Incyte, Clinigen, Servier, and Gentili. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Single assessments of minimal residual disease (MRD) effectively prognosticated relapse risks in patients with MCL treated with chemoimmunotherapy and transplantation, according to investigators.
However, by evaluating MRD status over time, disease progression could be predicted with greater certainty, according to study lead author Simone Ferrero, MD, assistant professor of hematology at the University of Torino (Italy).
“The most important message is that MRD is predictive, and then in particular, if you want to study MRD, you have to do a repeated MRD analysis in order to have a better picture of the disease course and to determine the prognosis of each single patient,” Dr. Ferrero said in an interview.
Predictive power of MRD
Piers Blombery, MBBS, hematologist and medical lead of the Molecular Hematology Laboratory at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said these study findings illustrate how the predictive power of MRD is enhanced when it is evaluated longitudinally, over the course of a patient’s disease.
“We need to be prepared to have models of MRD that take into account changes in values across time,” Dr. Blombery said in an interview.
“Conventionally, we have looked at single time points in disease, such as end of induction therapy or post autologous stem cell transplant,” said Dr. Blombery, “but we may need now to have more complex models that can integrate values over multiple time points to guide intervention.”
Dr. Blombery, who was not involved in the study, coauthored an independent commentary on the results that was also published in Blood.
Tools to predict relapse
Although initial MCL treatment is often effective, most patients will relapse. Accordingly, there have been considerable efforts to develop tools that identify patients at high risk of relapse, according to Dr. Ferrero and coauthors.
Among these tools is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI), which risk-stratifies patients on the basis of age, performance status, leukocyte count, and lactate dehydrogenase.
More recently, in several published studies, MRD has been demonstrated a high predictive value in MCL. However, the best way to evaluate MRD has yet to be worked out. There are differences in testing methods, sampling (that is, bone marrow versus peripheral blood), and time points that are evaluated.
In some recent studies, investigators have pooled MRD samples taken at different time points, according to Dr. Ferrero and colleagues. Furthermore, there had been no prior systematic attempts to compare the prognostic performance of MRD data evaluated over time, as compared with MRD at a single time point.
Exploiting MRD data
The analysis by Dr. Ferrero and coauthors, which appears in the journal Blood, is a substudy of FIL MCL0208, a recent multicenter, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that demonstrated the benefit of lenalidomide maintenance over observation following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) among 300 patients with MCL in Italy and Portugal.
In the study, investigators monitored MRD in both peripheral blood and bone marrow at 10 fixed time points throughout treatment (including induction, consolidation, post ASCT, and then every 6 months during maintenance and follow-up), yielding 4,351 individual MRD results.
Individual MRD analyses were prognostic in MCL, according to the investigators, with results that were relevant to disease progression right after ASCT, and were most predictive starting at 6 months after ASCT.
However, the best way to exploit the bulk of MRD information that had been collected, investigators said, was a model that combined regularly updated MRD results with MIPI scores.
This MIPI-adjusted model, based on MRD assessed in bone marrow by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR), outperformed both MIPI and a MIPI-adjusted single time-point analysis in terms of predicting time to progression.
The predictive power of the MIPI-adjusted bone marrow RQ-PCR analysis was illustrated by an area under the curve of 0.85-0.87, compared with an AUC of just 0.60-0.63 for classic MIPI analysis, 0.62-0.65 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at a post-ASCT time-point analysis, and 0.74-0.77 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at 6 months from transplant.
Peripheral blood ‘easier to collect’
Although bone marrow analysis performed best in the single-point MRD evaluations, looking at MRD over time greatly improved the predictive power of the peripheral blood MRD results, yielding an AUC up to 0.81, according to the report.
This enhancement of peripheral blood performance is a finding that may have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Ferrero, considering that peripheral blood monitoring is more practical for long-term, repeated MRD monitoring.
“It is interesting, because peripheral blood is easier to collect than bone marrow,” Dr. Ferrero said. “So if you plan in your analysis to monitor MRD in peripheral blood every 6 months, then you can have a predictive value similar to that of one single point in bone marrow.”
Dr. Ferrero provided disclosures related to Janssen, EUSA Pharma, Gilead, Morphosys, Incyte, Clinigen, Servier, and Gentili. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Single assessments of minimal residual disease (MRD) effectively prognosticated relapse risks in patients with MCL treated with chemoimmunotherapy and transplantation, according to investigators.
However, by evaluating MRD status over time, disease progression could be predicted with greater certainty, according to study lead author Simone Ferrero, MD, assistant professor of hematology at the University of Torino (Italy).
“The most important message is that MRD is predictive, and then in particular, if you want to study MRD, you have to do a repeated MRD analysis in order to have a better picture of the disease course and to determine the prognosis of each single patient,” Dr. Ferrero said in an interview.
Predictive power of MRD
Piers Blombery, MBBS, hematologist and medical lead of the Molecular Hematology Laboratory at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre in Melbourne, said these study findings illustrate how the predictive power of MRD is enhanced when it is evaluated longitudinally, over the course of a patient’s disease.
“We need to be prepared to have models of MRD that take into account changes in values across time,” Dr. Blombery said in an interview.
“Conventionally, we have looked at single time points in disease, such as end of induction therapy or post autologous stem cell transplant,” said Dr. Blombery, “but we may need now to have more complex models that can integrate values over multiple time points to guide intervention.”
Dr. Blombery, who was not involved in the study, coauthored an independent commentary on the results that was also published in Blood.
Tools to predict relapse
Although initial MCL treatment is often effective, most patients will relapse. Accordingly, there have been considerable efforts to develop tools that identify patients at high risk of relapse, according to Dr. Ferrero and coauthors.
Among these tools is the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI), which risk-stratifies patients on the basis of age, performance status, leukocyte count, and lactate dehydrogenase.
More recently, in several published studies, MRD has been demonstrated a high predictive value in MCL. However, the best way to evaluate MRD has yet to be worked out. There are differences in testing methods, sampling (that is, bone marrow versus peripheral blood), and time points that are evaluated.
In some recent studies, investigators have pooled MRD samples taken at different time points, according to Dr. Ferrero and colleagues. Furthermore, there had been no prior systematic attempts to compare the prognostic performance of MRD data evaluated over time, as compared with MRD at a single time point.
Exploiting MRD data
The analysis by Dr. Ferrero and coauthors, which appears in the journal Blood, is a substudy of FIL MCL0208, a recent multicenter, randomized, phase 3 clinical trial that demonstrated the benefit of lenalidomide maintenance over observation following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) among 300 patients with MCL in Italy and Portugal.
In the study, investigators monitored MRD in both peripheral blood and bone marrow at 10 fixed time points throughout treatment (including induction, consolidation, post ASCT, and then every 6 months during maintenance and follow-up), yielding 4,351 individual MRD results.
Individual MRD analyses were prognostic in MCL, according to the investigators, with results that were relevant to disease progression right after ASCT, and were most predictive starting at 6 months after ASCT.
However, the best way to exploit the bulk of MRD information that had been collected, investigators said, was a model that combined regularly updated MRD results with MIPI scores.
This MIPI-adjusted model, based on MRD assessed in bone marrow by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR), outperformed both MIPI and a MIPI-adjusted single time-point analysis in terms of predicting time to progression.
The predictive power of the MIPI-adjusted bone marrow RQ-PCR analysis was illustrated by an area under the curve of 0.85-0.87, compared with an AUC of just 0.60-0.63 for classic MIPI analysis, 0.62-0.65 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at a post-ASCT time-point analysis, and 0.74-0.77 for MIPI-adjusted MRD at 6 months from transplant.
Peripheral blood ‘easier to collect’
Although bone marrow analysis performed best in the single-point MRD evaluations, looking at MRD over time greatly improved the predictive power of the peripheral blood MRD results, yielding an AUC up to 0.81, according to the report.
This enhancement of peripheral blood performance is a finding that may have important clinical implications, according to Dr. Ferrero, considering that peripheral blood monitoring is more practical for long-term, repeated MRD monitoring.
“It is interesting, because peripheral blood is easier to collect than bone marrow,” Dr. Ferrero said. “So if you plan in your analysis to monitor MRD in peripheral blood every 6 months, then you can have a predictive value similar to that of one single point in bone marrow.”
Dr. Ferrero provided disclosures related to Janssen, EUSA Pharma, Gilead, Morphosys, Incyte, Clinigen, Servier, and Gentili. The other authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM BLOOD
Telemedicine helps SCD patients survive COVID, but more need access
ATLANTA – , according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.
Virtual visits, launched to deliver health care needs in the wake of a Georgia’s 2020 statewide shelter-in-place order, helped protect patients from COVID-19 infection, Dr. El Rassi said in a press conference at the meeting.
“The patients’ diligence and awareness to stay home during the pandemic have proven crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population,” he said. “The option of having virtual visits for health care delivery was key and should be utilized further in sickle cell care.”
However, virtual visits and other best practices to prevent and treat COVID-19 in patients with sickle cell disease can be challenging to implement outside of large, specialized centers such as Grady.
“The majority of sickle cell patients in major metropolitan areas are not plugged into dedicated sickle cell centers, and that’s a key issue,” said Dr. El Rassi.
“There’s a huge shortage of such clinics around major metropolitan areas, and that restricts things for the general population, unfortunately.”
COVID-19 prevention remains a challenge, no matter where patients are treated. Only about 50% of the center’s sickle cell disease patients are immunized, according to Dr. El Rassi, who added that assessment of vaccine response among those patients is ongoing.
Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, a sickle cell disease specialist, said long-term sustainability of virtual visits depends greatly on states’ continuation of laws or policies that facilitate access to telemedicine. A total of 22 states changed laws or policies during the pandemic to promote access to telemedicine, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
Virtual care is more challenging in states where expanded telemedicine coverage is not available or is ended, said Dr. Osunkwo, director of the Sickle Cell Enterprise at Levine Cancer Institute. The institute is part of Atrium Health, a large health system that operates in four states.
“We are no longer able to do virtual visits for our South Carolinian patients, even though across the border in North Carolina, you can still provide virtual care,” Dr. Osunkwo said in an interview.
“Sickle cell patients suffer from social determinants [of health], so getting to their doctor when they have a regular outpatient visit is kind of hard,” she added. “And having that virtual option actually makes them more adherent, and they have better access to care overall.”
In the study presented at the ASH meeting by Dr. El Rassi and colleagues, there were a total of 55 patients with COVID-19 among the 1,343 sickle cell disease patients they tracked. Of the 55 patients with COVID-19, 28 were female and 27 were male, and 35% were on hydroxyurea for disease modification.
Among these 55 patients with COVID-19, 44 (80%) were hospitalized, and the hospitalizations of 15 (27%) were deemed related to COVID-19 signs and symptoms, Dr. El Rassi said. Twelve of the 55 patients (22%) had emergency visits, including 5 (9%) because of COVID-19 symptoms, he added.
The two deaths from COVID-19 occurred in June and July 2020, said Dr. El Rassi, adding that those patients were among 20 total cases diagnosed from March to September of 2020.
Over the second reported wave of COVID-19, from October 2020 to March 2021, there were no deaths seen among 35 total COVID-19 cases, according to the report at the ASH meeting.
In an interview, Kaitlin Strumph, MD, a sickle cell disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in New York, noted that patients with sickle cell disease who contract COVID-19 are considered at high risk for morbidity and mortality.
“Patients and providers should not let down their guard,” Dr. Strumph said in an interview. “The best way to protect people from COVID-19 right now is prevention, and vaccinations are the key to further improving outcomes.”
Virtual visits can help bridge gaps in care for patients with sickle cell disease, said Dr. Strumph, given that limited access to care is a large driver of health disparities in this population.
“Telemedicine allows patients to stay home and limit their exposure to COVID-19 out in the community and at the hospital,” she said. “I think most providers feel confident that virtual visits are a huge benefit for the community, and we hope they are here to stay.”
Dr. El Rassi reported disclosures related to Cyclerion, Novartis, Pfizer, Global Blood Therapeutics and bluebird bio.
ATLANTA – , according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.
Virtual visits, launched to deliver health care needs in the wake of a Georgia’s 2020 statewide shelter-in-place order, helped protect patients from COVID-19 infection, Dr. El Rassi said in a press conference at the meeting.
“The patients’ diligence and awareness to stay home during the pandemic have proven crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population,” he said. “The option of having virtual visits for health care delivery was key and should be utilized further in sickle cell care.”
However, virtual visits and other best practices to prevent and treat COVID-19 in patients with sickle cell disease can be challenging to implement outside of large, specialized centers such as Grady.
“The majority of sickle cell patients in major metropolitan areas are not plugged into dedicated sickle cell centers, and that’s a key issue,” said Dr. El Rassi.
“There’s a huge shortage of such clinics around major metropolitan areas, and that restricts things for the general population, unfortunately.”
COVID-19 prevention remains a challenge, no matter where patients are treated. Only about 50% of the center’s sickle cell disease patients are immunized, according to Dr. El Rassi, who added that assessment of vaccine response among those patients is ongoing.
Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, a sickle cell disease specialist, said long-term sustainability of virtual visits depends greatly on states’ continuation of laws or policies that facilitate access to telemedicine. A total of 22 states changed laws or policies during the pandemic to promote access to telemedicine, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
Virtual care is more challenging in states where expanded telemedicine coverage is not available or is ended, said Dr. Osunkwo, director of the Sickle Cell Enterprise at Levine Cancer Institute. The institute is part of Atrium Health, a large health system that operates in four states.
“We are no longer able to do virtual visits for our South Carolinian patients, even though across the border in North Carolina, you can still provide virtual care,” Dr. Osunkwo said in an interview.
“Sickle cell patients suffer from social determinants [of health], so getting to their doctor when they have a regular outpatient visit is kind of hard,” she added. “And having that virtual option actually makes them more adherent, and they have better access to care overall.”
In the study presented at the ASH meeting by Dr. El Rassi and colleagues, there were a total of 55 patients with COVID-19 among the 1,343 sickle cell disease patients they tracked. Of the 55 patients with COVID-19, 28 were female and 27 were male, and 35% were on hydroxyurea for disease modification.
Among these 55 patients with COVID-19, 44 (80%) were hospitalized, and the hospitalizations of 15 (27%) were deemed related to COVID-19 signs and symptoms, Dr. El Rassi said. Twelve of the 55 patients (22%) had emergency visits, including 5 (9%) because of COVID-19 symptoms, he added.
The two deaths from COVID-19 occurred in June and July 2020, said Dr. El Rassi, adding that those patients were among 20 total cases diagnosed from March to September of 2020.
Over the second reported wave of COVID-19, from October 2020 to March 2021, there were no deaths seen among 35 total COVID-19 cases, according to the report at the ASH meeting.
In an interview, Kaitlin Strumph, MD, a sickle cell disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in New York, noted that patients with sickle cell disease who contract COVID-19 are considered at high risk for morbidity and mortality.
“Patients and providers should not let down their guard,” Dr. Strumph said in an interview. “The best way to protect people from COVID-19 right now is prevention, and vaccinations are the key to further improving outcomes.”
Virtual visits can help bridge gaps in care for patients with sickle cell disease, said Dr. Strumph, given that limited access to care is a large driver of health disparities in this population.
“Telemedicine allows patients to stay home and limit their exposure to COVID-19 out in the community and at the hospital,” she said. “I think most providers feel confident that virtual visits are a huge benefit for the community, and we hope they are here to stay.”
Dr. El Rassi reported disclosures related to Cyclerion, Novartis, Pfizer, Global Blood Therapeutics and bluebird bio.
ATLANTA – , according to an investigator at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.
During the first COVID-19 wave in the summer of 2020, Atlanta’s Grady Sickle Cell Center, the nation’s largest adult sickle cell center, recorded two deaths among the 20 COVID-19_infected patients seen there, said Fuad El Rassi, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta.
Virtual visits, launched to deliver health care needs in the wake of a Georgia’s 2020 statewide shelter-in-place order, helped protect patients from COVID-19 infection, Dr. El Rassi said in a press conference at the meeting.
“The patients’ diligence and awareness to stay home during the pandemic have proven crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population,” he said. “The option of having virtual visits for health care delivery was key and should be utilized further in sickle cell care.”
However, virtual visits and other best practices to prevent and treat COVID-19 in patients with sickle cell disease can be challenging to implement outside of large, specialized centers such as Grady.
“The majority of sickle cell patients in major metropolitan areas are not plugged into dedicated sickle cell centers, and that’s a key issue,” said Dr. El Rassi.
“There’s a huge shortage of such clinics around major metropolitan areas, and that restricts things for the general population, unfortunately.”
COVID-19 prevention remains a challenge, no matter where patients are treated. Only about 50% of the center’s sickle cell disease patients are immunized, according to Dr. El Rassi, who added that assessment of vaccine response among those patients is ongoing.
Ifeyinwa (Ify) Osunkwo, MD, MPH, a sickle cell disease specialist, said long-term sustainability of virtual visits depends greatly on states’ continuation of laws or policies that facilitate access to telemedicine. A total of 22 states changed laws or policies during the pandemic to promote access to telemedicine, according to the Commonwealth Fund.
Virtual care is more challenging in states where expanded telemedicine coverage is not available or is ended, said Dr. Osunkwo, director of the Sickle Cell Enterprise at Levine Cancer Institute. The institute is part of Atrium Health, a large health system that operates in four states.
“We are no longer able to do virtual visits for our South Carolinian patients, even though across the border in North Carolina, you can still provide virtual care,” Dr. Osunkwo said in an interview.
“Sickle cell patients suffer from social determinants [of health], so getting to their doctor when they have a regular outpatient visit is kind of hard,” she added. “And having that virtual option actually makes them more adherent, and they have better access to care overall.”
In the study presented at the ASH meeting by Dr. El Rassi and colleagues, there were a total of 55 patients with COVID-19 among the 1,343 sickle cell disease patients they tracked. Of the 55 patients with COVID-19, 28 were female and 27 were male, and 35% were on hydroxyurea for disease modification.
Among these 55 patients with COVID-19, 44 (80%) were hospitalized, and the hospitalizations of 15 (27%) were deemed related to COVID-19 signs and symptoms, Dr. El Rassi said. Twelve of the 55 patients (22%) had emergency visits, including 5 (9%) because of COVID-19 symptoms, he added.
The two deaths from COVID-19 occurred in June and July 2020, said Dr. El Rassi, adding that those patients were among 20 total cases diagnosed from March to September of 2020.
Over the second reported wave of COVID-19, from October 2020 to March 2021, there were no deaths seen among 35 total COVID-19 cases, according to the report at the ASH meeting.
In an interview, Kaitlin Strumph, MD, a sickle cell disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore in New York, noted that patients with sickle cell disease who contract COVID-19 are considered at high risk for morbidity and mortality.
“Patients and providers should not let down their guard,” Dr. Strumph said in an interview. “The best way to protect people from COVID-19 right now is prevention, and vaccinations are the key to further improving outcomes.”
Virtual visits can help bridge gaps in care for patients with sickle cell disease, said Dr. Strumph, given that limited access to care is a large driver of health disparities in this population.
“Telemedicine allows patients to stay home and limit their exposure to COVID-19 out in the community and at the hospital,” she said. “I think most providers feel confident that virtual visits are a huge benefit for the community, and we hope they are here to stay.”
Dr. El Rassi reported disclosures related to Cyclerion, Novartis, Pfizer, Global Blood Therapeutics and bluebird bio.
FROM ASH 2021
Mesothelioma trials: Moving toward improved survival
Although mesothelioma continues to be a very difficult disease to treat and one with a poor prognosis, new and emerging therapeutic developments hold the promise of extending survival for appropriately selected patients.
Following years of little to no movement, encouraging advances in treatment have been seen on the immunotherapy front. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated acceptable safety and promising efficacy in the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), including an overall survival advantage over standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy. Beyond systemic therapy, the development of new radiation techniques to complement current, more conservative surgical approaches is likewise encouraging, though further randomized clinical trial data is awaited to determine the potential impact on survival.
Longer survival would be good news for the estimated 3,000 individuals diagnosed with MPM each year in the United States. Overall, the outlook for patients with this rare cancer remains unfavorable, with a 5-year survival rate of about 11%, according to data from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program.
One factor underlying that grim survival statistic is a relative lack of investment in the development of drugs specific to rare cancers, as compared to more common malignancies, said Anne S. Tsao, MD, professor and director of the mesothelioma program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
On the plus side, the wave of research for more common cancers has yielded a number of agents, including the immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and durvalumab, that hold promise in rare tumor types as well.
“I think that mesothelioma has benefited from that, because these all are agents that have been developed for other solid tumors that are then brought into mesothelioma,” Dr. Tsao said in an interview. “So there’s always a lag time, but nevertheless, of course we are thrilled that we have additional treatment options for these patients.”
Checkpoint inhibitors
Multiple checkpoint inhibitors have received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) over the past few years. Because many mesothelioma doctors also treat NSCLC, bringing those agents into the mesothelioma sphere was not a very difficult jump, Dr. Tsao said.
Checkpoint inhibitors got a foothold in mesothelioma, much like in NSCLC, by demonstrating clear benefit in the salvage setting, according to Dr. Tsao.
Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and avelumab were evaluated in phase 1b/2 clinical trials and real-world cohorts that demonstrated response rates of around 20%, median progression-free survival of 4 months, and median overall survival (OS) around 12 months in patients with previously treated MPM.
Although results of those early-stage studies had to be interpreted with caution, they nonetheless suggested a slight edge for these checkpoint inhibitors over historical data, according to the authors of a recent article in Cancer Treatment Reviews.1 On the basis of phase 1 and 2 data, current clinical practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network2 list pembrolizumab and the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab as options for MPM patients who have received previous therapy. Phase 3 trials have also been launched, including PROMISE-meso, which is comparing pembrolizumab to single-agent chemotherapy in advanced, pretreated MPM3, and CONFIRM, which pits nivolumab against placebo in relapsed MPM.4
On the front lines
Encouraging results in previously treated MPM led to the evaluation of checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy. Notably, the FDA approved nivolumab given with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable MPM in October 2020, making that combination the first immunotherapy regimen to receive an indication in this disease.
The FDA approval was based on prespecified interim analysis of CheckMate 743, a phase 3 study that included 605 patients randomly allocated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or to placebo.
At the interim analysis, median OS was 18.1 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 14.1 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 96.6% confidence interval, 0.60-0.91; P = 0.0020), according to results of the study published in the Lancet.5 The 2-year OS rate was 41% for the immunotherapy combination and 27% for placebo. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 30% of the immunotherapy-treated patients and 32% of the chemotherapy-treated patients.
The magnitude of nivolumab-ipilimumab benefit appeared to be largest among patients with non-epithelioid MPM subtypes (sarcomatoid and biphasic), owing to the inferior impact of chemotherapy in these patients, with a median OS of just 8.8 months, according to investigators.
That’s not to say that immunotherapy didn’t work for patients with epithelioid histology. The benefit of nivolumab-ipilimumab was consistent for non-epithelioid and epithelioid patient subsets, with median OS of 18.1 and 18.7 months, respectively, results of subgroup analysis showed.
According to Dr. Tsao, those results reflect the extremely poor prognosis and pressing need for effective therapy early in the course of treatment for patients with non-epithelioid histology.
“You have to get the most effective therapy into these patients as quickly as you can,” she explained. “If you can get the more effective treatment and early, then you’ll see a longer-term benefit for them.”
Role of the PD-L1 biomarker
Despite this progress, one key hurdle has been determining the role of the PD-L1 biomarker in mesothelioma. In NSCLC, PD-L1 is often used to determine which patients will benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. In mesothelioma, the correlations have been more elusive.
Among patients in the CheckMate 743 study treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, OS was not significantly different for those with PD-L1 expression levels of less than 1% and those with 1% or greater, investigators said. Moreover, PD-L1 expression wasn’t a stratification factor in the study.
“When looking at all of the studies, it appears that the checkpoint inhibitors can truly benefit a certain percentage of mesothelioma patients, but we can’t pick them out just yet,” Dr. Tsao said.
“So our recommendation is to offer [checkpoint inhibitor therapy] at some point in their treatment, whether it’s first, second, or third line,” she continued. “They can get some benefit, and even in those if you don’t get a great response, you can still get disease stabilization, which in and of itself can be highly beneficial.”
Future directions
Immune checkpoint inhibitor–based combination regimens and cellular therapy represent promising directions forward in MPM research. There are several notable phase 3 trials of checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy and targeted therapy going forward, plus intriguing data emerging on the potential role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in this setting.
One phase 3 trial to watch is IND277, which is comparing pembrolizumab plus cisplatin/pemetrexed chemotherapy to cisplatin/pemetrexed alone; that trial has enrolled 520 participants and has an estimated primary completion date in July 2022, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Another is BEAT-Meso, a comparison of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy against bevacizumab and chemotherapy, which has an estimated enrollment of 400 participants and primary completion date of January 2024. A third trial of interest is DREAM3R, which compares durvalumab plus chemotherapy followed by durvalumab maintenance to standard chemotherapy followed by observation. That study should enroll 480 participants and has an estimated primary completion date of April 2025.
CAR T-cell therapy, while best known for its emerging role in the treatment of hematologic malignancies, may also have a place in mesothelioma therapy one day. In a recently published report, investigators described a first-in-human phase I study of a mesothelin-targeted CAR T-cell therapy given in combination with pembrolizumab. Among 18 MPM patients who received pembrolizumab safely, median OS from time of CAR T-cell infusion was 23.9 months and 1-year OS was 83%, according to investigators.6An OS of nearly 24 months is “very encouraging” and compares favorably with historical results with systemic therapy in this difficult-to-treat disease, said Jacques P. Fontaine, MD, a thoracic surgeon and section head of mesothelioma research and treatment center at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.
“It’s huge, but you have to take into account that this [OS] is still less than 2 years,” Dr. Fontaine said in an interview. “There’s still a lot of work to be done.”
Radiotherapy making an IMPRINT
Meanwhile, new developments in the multimodality treatment of resectable MPM are progressing and have the potential to extend survival among patients who undergo lung-sparing surgery.
Less aggressive intervention is increasingly the preferred approach to surgery in this patient population. That shift is supported by studies showing that lung-sparing pleurectomy-decortication (P/D) resulted in less morbidity and potentially better survival outcomes than extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), according to Andreas Rimner, MD, associate attending physician and director of thoracic radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
However, it is more challenging to deliver radiotherapy safely in patients who have undergone P/D as compared with patients who have undergone EPP, according to Dr. Rimner.
“When there’s no lung in place [as in EPP], it’s pretty simple – you just treat the entire empty chest to kill any microscopic cells that may still be left behind,” he said in an interview. “But now we have a situation where both lungs are still in place, and they are very radiation sensitive, so that’s not an easy feat.”
Driven by the limitations of conventional radiation, Dr. Rimner and colleagues developed a novel technique known as hemithoracic intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy (IMPRINT) that allows more precise application of radiotherapy.
In a phase 2 study published in 2016, IMPRINT was found to be safe, with an acceptable rate of radiation pneumonitis (30% grade 2 or 3), according to investigators.7
Subsequent studies have demonstrated encouraging clinical outcomes, including a 20.2-month median OS for IMPRINT versus 12.3 months for conventional adjuvant radiotherapy in a retrospective study of 209 patients who underwent P/D between 1975 and 2015.8 Those findings led to the development of a phase 3 trial known as NRG-LU006 that is evaluating P/D plus chemotherapy with or without adjuvant IMPRINT in an estimated 150 patients. The study has a primary endpoint of OS, and an estimated primary completion date in July 2025, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.
Dr. Rimner said he’s optimistic about the prospects of this study, particularly with recently published results of a phase 3 study in which Italian investigators demonstrated an OS benefit of IMPRINT over palliative radiation in patients with nonmetastatic MPM.9
“That’s more data and rationale that shows there is good reason to believe that we are adding something here with this radiation technique,” said Dr. Rimner.
Dr. Fontaine, the thoracic surgeon and mesothelioma research head at Moffitt Cancer Center, said he’s hoping to see a substantial impact of IMPRINT on disease-free survival (DFS) once results of NRG-LU006 are available.
“I think DFS plays a role that we’ve underestimated over the last few years for sure,” he said.
For a patient with MPM, a short DFS can be anxiety provoking and may have negative impacts on quality of life, even despite a long OS, he explained.
“In terms of your outlook on life, how many times you have to go see a doctor, and how you enjoy life, there’s a big difference between the two,” he said.
Dr. Tsao provided disclosures related to Ariad, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Genentech, Huron, Merck, Millennium, Novartis, Polaris, Roche, Seattle Genetics, SELLAS Life Sciences Group, and Takeda. Dr. Fontaine reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Rimner reported disclosures related to Bristol-Myers Squibb, GE Healthcare, Varian Medical Systems, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
References
1. Parikh K et al. Cancer Treat Rev. 2021 Sept 1;99:102250.
2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines. Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. Version 2.2021, published 2021 Feb 16. Accessed 2021 Aug 30. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/mpm.pdf
3. Popat S et al. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(12):1734-45.
4. Fennell D et al. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2021 Mar 1;16(3):S62.
5. Baas P et al. [published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Feb 20;397(10275):670]. Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):375-86.
6. Adusumilli PS et al. Cancer Discov. 2021 Jul 15;candisc.0407.2021.
7. Rimner A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2761-8.
8. Shaikh F et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(6):993-1000.
9. Trovo M et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(5):1368-76.
Although mesothelioma continues to be a very difficult disease to treat and one with a poor prognosis, new and emerging therapeutic developments hold the promise of extending survival for appropriately selected patients.
Following years of little to no movement, encouraging advances in treatment have been seen on the immunotherapy front. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated acceptable safety and promising efficacy in the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), including an overall survival advantage over standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy. Beyond systemic therapy, the development of new radiation techniques to complement current, more conservative surgical approaches is likewise encouraging, though further randomized clinical trial data is awaited to determine the potential impact on survival.
Longer survival would be good news for the estimated 3,000 individuals diagnosed with MPM each year in the United States. Overall, the outlook for patients with this rare cancer remains unfavorable, with a 5-year survival rate of about 11%, according to data from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program.
One factor underlying that grim survival statistic is a relative lack of investment in the development of drugs specific to rare cancers, as compared to more common malignancies, said Anne S. Tsao, MD, professor and director of the mesothelioma program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
On the plus side, the wave of research for more common cancers has yielded a number of agents, including the immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and durvalumab, that hold promise in rare tumor types as well.
“I think that mesothelioma has benefited from that, because these all are agents that have been developed for other solid tumors that are then brought into mesothelioma,” Dr. Tsao said in an interview. “So there’s always a lag time, but nevertheless, of course we are thrilled that we have additional treatment options for these patients.”
Checkpoint inhibitors
Multiple checkpoint inhibitors have received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) over the past few years. Because many mesothelioma doctors also treat NSCLC, bringing those agents into the mesothelioma sphere was not a very difficult jump, Dr. Tsao said.
Checkpoint inhibitors got a foothold in mesothelioma, much like in NSCLC, by demonstrating clear benefit in the salvage setting, according to Dr. Tsao.
Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and avelumab were evaluated in phase 1b/2 clinical trials and real-world cohorts that demonstrated response rates of around 20%, median progression-free survival of 4 months, and median overall survival (OS) around 12 months in patients with previously treated MPM.
Although results of those early-stage studies had to be interpreted with caution, they nonetheless suggested a slight edge for these checkpoint inhibitors over historical data, according to the authors of a recent article in Cancer Treatment Reviews.1 On the basis of phase 1 and 2 data, current clinical practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network2 list pembrolizumab and the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab as options for MPM patients who have received previous therapy. Phase 3 trials have also been launched, including PROMISE-meso, which is comparing pembrolizumab to single-agent chemotherapy in advanced, pretreated MPM3, and CONFIRM, which pits nivolumab against placebo in relapsed MPM.4
On the front lines
Encouraging results in previously treated MPM led to the evaluation of checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy. Notably, the FDA approved nivolumab given with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable MPM in October 2020, making that combination the first immunotherapy regimen to receive an indication in this disease.
The FDA approval was based on prespecified interim analysis of CheckMate 743, a phase 3 study that included 605 patients randomly allocated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or to placebo.
At the interim analysis, median OS was 18.1 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 14.1 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 96.6% confidence interval, 0.60-0.91; P = 0.0020), according to results of the study published in the Lancet.5 The 2-year OS rate was 41% for the immunotherapy combination and 27% for placebo. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 30% of the immunotherapy-treated patients and 32% of the chemotherapy-treated patients.
The magnitude of nivolumab-ipilimumab benefit appeared to be largest among patients with non-epithelioid MPM subtypes (sarcomatoid and biphasic), owing to the inferior impact of chemotherapy in these patients, with a median OS of just 8.8 months, according to investigators.
That’s not to say that immunotherapy didn’t work for patients with epithelioid histology. The benefit of nivolumab-ipilimumab was consistent for non-epithelioid and epithelioid patient subsets, with median OS of 18.1 and 18.7 months, respectively, results of subgroup analysis showed.
According to Dr. Tsao, those results reflect the extremely poor prognosis and pressing need for effective therapy early in the course of treatment for patients with non-epithelioid histology.
“You have to get the most effective therapy into these patients as quickly as you can,” she explained. “If you can get the more effective treatment and early, then you’ll see a longer-term benefit for them.”
Role of the PD-L1 biomarker
Despite this progress, one key hurdle has been determining the role of the PD-L1 biomarker in mesothelioma. In NSCLC, PD-L1 is often used to determine which patients will benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. In mesothelioma, the correlations have been more elusive.
Among patients in the CheckMate 743 study treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, OS was not significantly different for those with PD-L1 expression levels of less than 1% and those with 1% or greater, investigators said. Moreover, PD-L1 expression wasn’t a stratification factor in the study.
“When looking at all of the studies, it appears that the checkpoint inhibitors can truly benefit a certain percentage of mesothelioma patients, but we can’t pick them out just yet,” Dr. Tsao said.
“So our recommendation is to offer [checkpoint inhibitor therapy] at some point in their treatment, whether it’s first, second, or third line,” she continued. “They can get some benefit, and even in those if you don’t get a great response, you can still get disease stabilization, which in and of itself can be highly beneficial.”
Future directions
Immune checkpoint inhibitor–based combination regimens and cellular therapy represent promising directions forward in MPM research. There are several notable phase 3 trials of checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy and targeted therapy going forward, plus intriguing data emerging on the potential role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in this setting.
One phase 3 trial to watch is IND277, which is comparing pembrolizumab plus cisplatin/pemetrexed chemotherapy to cisplatin/pemetrexed alone; that trial has enrolled 520 participants and has an estimated primary completion date in July 2022, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Another is BEAT-Meso, a comparison of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy against bevacizumab and chemotherapy, which has an estimated enrollment of 400 participants and primary completion date of January 2024. A third trial of interest is DREAM3R, which compares durvalumab plus chemotherapy followed by durvalumab maintenance to standard chemotherapy followed by observation. That study should enroll 480 participants and has an estimated primary completion date of April 2025.
CAR T-cell therapy, while best known for its emerging role in the treatment of hematologic malignancies, may also have a place in mesothelioma therapy one day. In a recently published report, investigators described a first-in-human phase I study of a mesothelin-targeted CAR T-cell therapy given in combination with pembrolizumab. Among 18 MPM patients who received pembrolizumab safely, median OS from time of CAR T-cell infusion was 23.9 months and 1-year OS was 83%, according to investigators.6An OS of nearly 24 months is “very encouraging” and compares favorably with historical results with systemic therapy in this difficult-to-treat disease, said Jacques P. Fontaine, MD, a thoracic surgeon and section head of mesothelioma research and treatment center at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.
“It’s huge, but you have to take into account that this [OS] is still less than 2 years,” Dr. Fontaine said in an interview. “There’s still a lot of work to be done.”
Radiotherapy making an IMPRINT
Meanwhile, new developments in the multimodality treatment of resectable MPM are progressing and have the potential to extend survival among patients who undergo lung-sparing surgery.
Less aggressive intervention is increasingly the preferred approach to surgery in this patient population. That shift is supported by studies showing that lung-sparing pleurectomy-decortication (P/D) resulted in less morbidity and potentially better survival outcomes than extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), according to Andreas Rimner, MD, associate attending physician and director of thoracic radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
However, it is more challenging to deliver radiotherapy safely in patients who have undergone P/D as compared with patients who have undergone EPP, according to Dr. Rimner.
“When there’s no lung in place [as in EPP], it’s pretty simple – you just treat the entire empty chest to kill any microscopic cells that may still be left behind,” he said in an interview. “But now we have a situation where both lungs are still in place, and they are very radiation sensitive, so that’s not an easy feat.”
Driven by the limitations of conventional radiation, Dr. Rimner and colleagues developed a novel technique known as hemithoracic intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy (IMPRINT) that allows more precise application of radiotherapy.
In a phase 2 study published in 2016, IMPRINT was found to be safe, with an acceptable rate of radiation pneumonitis (30% grade 2 or 3), according to investigators.7
Subsequent studies have demonstrated encouraging clinical outcomes, including a 20.2-month median OS for IMPRINT versus 12.3 months for conventional adjuvant radiotherapy in a retrospective study of 209 patients who underwent P/D between 1975 and 2015.8 Those findings led to the development of a phase 3 trial known as NRG-LU006 that is evaluating P/D plus chemotherapy with or without adjuvant IMPRINT in an estimated 150 patients. The study has a primary endpoint of OS, and an estimated primary completion date in July 2025, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.
Dr. Rimner said he’s optimistic about the prospects of this study, particularly with recently published results of a phase 3 study in which Italian investigators demonstrated an OS benefit of IMPRINT over palliative radiation in patients with nonmetastatic MPM.9
“That’s more data and rationale that shows there is good reason to believe that we are adding something here with this radiation technique,” said Dr. Rimner.
Dr. Fontaine, the thoracic surgeon and mesothelioma research head at Moffitt Cancer Center, said he’s hoping to see a substantial impact of IMPRINT on disease-free survival (DFS) once results of NRG-LU006 are available.
“I think DFS plays a role that we’ve underestimated over the last few years for sure,” he said.
For a patient with MPM, a short DFS can be anxiety provoking and may have negative impacts on quality of life, even despite a long OS, he explained.
“In terms of your outlook on life, how many times you have to go see a doctor, and how you enjoy life, there’s a big difference between the two,” he said.
Dr. Tsao provided disclosures related to Ariad, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Genentech, Huron, Merck, Millennium, Novartis, Polaris, Roche, Seattle Genetics, SELLAS Life Sciences Group, and Takeda. Dr. Fontaine reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Rimner reported disclosures related to Bristol-Myers Squibb, GE Healthcare, Varian Medical Systems, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
References
1. Parikh K et al. Cancer Treat Rev. 2021 Sept 1;99:102250.
2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines. Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. Version 2.2021, published 2021 Feb 16. Accessed 2021 Aug 30. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/mpm.pdf
3. Popat S et al. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(12):1734-45.
4. Fennell D et al. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2021 Mar 1;16(3):S62.
5. Baas P et al. [published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Feb 20;397(10275):670]. Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):375-86.
6. Adusumilli PS et al. Cancer Discov. 2021 Jul 15;candisc.0407.2021.
7. Rimner A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2761-8.
8. Shaikh F et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(6):993-1000.
9. Trovo M et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(5):1368-76.
Although mesothelioma continues to be a very difficult disease to treat and one with a poor prognosis, new and emerging therapeutic developments hold the promise of extending survival for appropriately selected patients.
Following years of little to no movement, encouraging advances in treatment have been seen on the immunotherapy front. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated acceptable safety and promising efficacy in the treatment of unresectable malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), including an overall survival advantage over standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy. Beyond systemic therapy, the development of new radiation techniques to complement current, more conservative surgical approaches is likewise encouraging, though further randomized clinical trial data is awaited to determine the potential impact on survival.
Longer survival would be good news for the estimated 3,000 individuals diagnosed with MPM each year in the United States. Overall, the outlook for patients with this rare cancer remains unfavorable, with a 5-year survival rate of about 11%, according to data from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program.
One factor underlying that grim survival statistic is a relative lack of investment in the development of drugs specific to rare cancers, as compared to more common malignancies, said Anne S. Tsao, MD, professor and director of the mesothelioma program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
On the plus side, the wave of research for more common cancers has yielded a number of agents, including the immune checkpoint inhibitors such as nivolumab, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and durvalumab, that hold promise in rare tumor types as well.
“I think that mesothelioma has benefited from that, because these all are agents that have been developed for other solid tumors that are then brought into mesothelioma,” Dr. Tsao said in an interview. “So there’s always a lag time, but nevertheless, of course we are thrilled that we have additional treatment options for these patients.”
Checkpoint inhibitors
Multiple checkpoint inhibitors have received Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) over the past few years. Because many mesothelioma doctors also treat NSCLC, bringing those agents into the mesothelioma sphere was not a very difficult jump, Dr. Tsao said.
Checkpoint inhibitors got a foothold in mesothelioma, much like in NSCLC, by demonstrating clear benefit in the salvage setting, according to Dr. Tsao.
Pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and avelumab were evaluated in phase 1b/2 clinical trials and real-world cohorts that demonstrated response rates of around 20%, median progression-free survival of 4 months, and median overall survival (OS) around 12 months in patients with previously treated MPM.
Although results of those early-stage studies had to be interpreted with caution, they nonetheless suggested a slight edge for these checkpoint inhibitors over historical data, according to the authors of a recent article in Cancer Treatment Reviews.1 On the basis of phase 1 and 2 data, current clinical practice guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network2 list pembrolizumab and the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab as options for MPM patients who have received previous therapy. Phase 3 trials have also been launched, including PROMISE-meso, which is comparing pembrolizumab to single-agent chemotherapy in advanced, pretreated MPM3, and CONFIRM, which pits nivolumab against placebo in relapsed MPM.4
On the front lines
Encouraging results in previously treated MPM led to the evaluation of checkpoint inhibitors as first-line therapy. Notably, the FDA approved nivolumab given with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable MPM in October 2020, making that combination the first immunotherapy regimen to receive an indication in this disease.
The FDA approval was based on prespecified interim analysis of CheckMate 743, a phase 3 study that included 605 patients randomly allocated to nivolumab plus ipilimumab or to placebo.
At the interim analysis, median OS was 18.1 months for nivolumab plus ipilimumab, versus just 14.1 months for placebo (hazard ratio, 0.74; 96.6% confidence interval, 0.60-0.91; P = 0.0020), according to results of the study published in the Lancet.5 The 2-year OS rate was 41% for the immunotherapy combination and 27% for placebo. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were seen in 30% of the immunotherapy-treated patients and 32% of the chemotherapy-treated patients.
The magnitude of nivolumab-ipilimumab benefit appeared to be largest among patients with non-epithelioid MPM subtypes (sarcomatoid and biphasic), owing to the inferior impact of chemotherapy in these patients, with a median OS of just 8.8 months, according to investigators.
That’s not to say that immunotherapy didn’t work for patients with epithelioid histology. The benefit of nivolumab-ipilimumab was consistent for non-epithelioid and epithelioid patient subsets, with median OS of 18.1 and 18.7 months, respectively, results of subgroup analysis showed.
According to Dr. Tsao, those results reflect the extremely poor prognosis and pressing need for effective therapy early in the course of treatment for patients with non-epithelioid histology.
“You have to get the most effective therapy into these patients as quickly as you can,” she explained. “If you can get the more effective treatment and early, then you’ll see a longer-term benefit for them.”
Role of the PD-L1 biomarker
Despite this progress, one key hurdle has been determining the role of the PD-L1 biomarker in mesothelioma. In NSCLC, PD-L1 is often used to determine which patients will benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. In mesothelioma, the correlations have been more elusive.
Among patients in the CheckMate 743 study treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, OS was not significantly different for those with PD-L1 expression levels of less than 1% and those with 1% or greater, investigators said. Moreover, PD-L1 expression wasn’t a stratification factor in the study.
“When looking at all of the studies, it appears that the checkpoint inhibitors can truly benefit a certain percentage of mesothelioma patients, but we can’t pick them out just yet,” Dr. Tsao said.
“So our recommendation is to offer [checkpoint inhibitor therapy] at some point in their treatment, whether it’s first, second, or third line,” she continued. “They can get some benefit, and even in those if you don’t get a great response, you can still get disease stabilization, which in and of itself can be highly beneficial.”
Future directions
Immune checkpoint inhibitor–based combination regimens and cellular therapy represent promising directions forward in MPM research. There are several notable phase 3 trials of checkpoint inhibitors plus chemotherapy and targeted therapy going forward, plus intriguing data emerging on the potential role of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in this setting.
One phase 3 trial to watch is IND277, which is comparing pembrolizumab plus cisplatin/pemetrexed chemotherapy to cisplatin/pemetrexed alone; that trial has enrolled 520 participants and has an estimated primary completion date in July 2022, according to the ClinicalTrials.gov website. Another is BEAT-Meso, a comparison of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and chemotherapy against bevacizumab and chemotherapy, which has an estimated enrollment of 400 participants and primary completion date of January 2024. A third trial of interest is DREAM3R, which compares durvalumab plus chemotherapy followed by durvalumab maintenance to standard chemotherapy followed by observation. That study should enroll 480 participants and has an estimated primary completion date of April 2025.
CAR T-cell therapy, while best known for its emerging role in the treatment of hematologic malignancies, may also have a place in mesothelioma therapy one day. In a recently published report, investigators described a first-in-human phase I study of a mesothelin-targeted CAR T-cell therapy given in combination with pembrolizumab. Among 18 MPM patients who received pembrolizumab safely, median OS from time of CAR T-cell infusion was 23.9 months and 1-year OS was 83%, according to investigators.6An OS of nearly 24 months is “very encouraging” and compares favorably with historical results with systemic therapy in this difficult-to-treat disease, said Jacques P. Fontaine, MD, a thoracic surgeon and section head of mesothelioma research and treatment center at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.
“It’s huge, but you have to take into account that this [OS] is still less than 2 years,” Dr. Fontaine said in an interview. “There’s still a lot of work to be done.”
Radiotherapy making an IMPRINT
Meanwhile, new developments in the multimodality treatment of resectable MPM are progressing and have the potential to extend survival among patients who undergo lung-sparing surgery.
Less aggressive intervention is increasingly the preferred approach to surgery in this patient population. That shift is supported by studies showing that lung-sparing pleurectomy-decortication (P/D) resulted in less morbidity and potentially better survival outcomes than extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP), according to Andreas Rimner, MD, associate attending physician and director of thoracic radiation oncology research at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
However, it is more challenging to deliver radiotherapy safely in patients who have undergone P/D as compared with patients who have undergone EPP, according to Dr. Rimner.
“When there’s no lung in place [as in EPP], it’s pretty simple – you just treat the entire empty chest to kill any microscopic cells that may still be left behind,” he said in an interview. “But now we have a situation where both lungs are still in place, and they are very radiation sensitive, so that’s not an easy feat.”
Driven by the limitations of conventional radiation, Dr. Rimner and colleagues developed a novel technique known as hemithoracic intensity-modulated pleural radiation therapy (IMPRINT) that allows more precise application of radiotherapy.
In a phase 2 study published in 2016, IMPRINT was found to be safe, with an acceptable rate of radiation pneumonitis (30% grade 2 or 3), according to investigators.7
Subsequent studies have demonstrated encouraging clinical outcomes, including a 20.2-month median OS for IMPRINT versus 12.3 months for conventional adjuvant radiotherapy in a retrospective study of 209 patients who underwent P/D between 1975 and 2015.8 Those findings led to the development of a phase 3 trial known as NRG-LU006 that is evaluating P/D plus chemotherapy with or without adjuvant IMPRINT in an estimated 150 patients. The study has a primary endpoint of OS, and an estimated primary completion date in July 2025, according to ClinicalTrials.gov.
Dr. Rimner said he’s optimistic about the prospects of this study, particularly with recently published results of a phase 3 study in which Italian investigators demonstrated an OS benefit of IMPRINT over palliative radiation in patients with nonmetastatic MPM.9
“That’s more data and rationale that shows there is good reason to believe that we are adding something here with this radiation technique,” said Dr. Rimner.
Dr. Fontaine, the thoracic surgeon and mesothelioma research head at Moffitt Cancer Center, said he’s hoping to see a substantial impact of IMPRINT on disease-free survival (DFS) once results of NRG-LU006 are available.
“I think DFS plays a role that we’ve underestimated over the last few years for sure,” he said.
For a patient with MPM, a short DFS can be anxiety provoking and may have negative impacts on quality of life, even despite a long OS, he explained.
“In terms of your outlook on life, how many times you have to go see a doctor, and how you enjoy life, there’s a big difference between the two,” he said.
Dr. Tsao provided disclosures related to Ariad, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Epizyme, Genentech, Huron, Merck, Millennium, Novartis, Polaris, Roche, Seattle Genetics, SELLAS Life Sciences Group, and Takeda. Dr. Fontaine reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Rimner reported disclosures related to Bristol-Myers Squibb, GE Healthcare, Varian Medical Systems, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
References
1. Parikh K et al. Cancer Treat Rev. 2021 Sept 1;99:102250.
2. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines. Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. Version 2.2021, published 2021 Feb 16. Accessed 2021 Aug 30. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/mpm.pdf
3. Popat S et al. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(12):1734-45.
4. Fennell D et al. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 2021 Mar 1;16(3):S62.
5. Baas P et al. [published correction appears in Lancet. 2021 Feb 20;397(10275):670]. Lancet. 2021 Jan 30;397(10272):375-86.
6. Adusumilli PS et al. Cancer Discov. 2021 Jul 15;candisc.0407.2021.
7. Rimner A et al. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(23):2761-8.
8. Shaikh F et al. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12(6):993-1000.
9. Trovo M et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021;109(5):1368-76.
Genomic classifier is one piece of the ILD diagnosis puzzle
Although genomic testing is useful when an interstitial lung disease diagnosis is uncertain, the testing results themselves aren’t sufficient to make the diagnosis, Daniel Dilling, MD, FCCP, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, which was held virtually.
The genomic classifier (Envisia, Veracyte) helps differentiate idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) by detecting usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), the hallmark pattern of this interstitial lung disease.
However, UIP is just one piece of the larger diagnostic puzzle, according to Dr. Dilling, professor of medicine in the interstitial lung disease program at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill.
“Remember, it’s just a pattern, and not a diagnosis of IPF,” Dr. Dilling said in his presentation.
Genomic classifier results correlate well with both histologic and radiographic UIP pattern, studies show.
However, Dr. Dilling said the value of the genomic classifier is not in isolation.
“We don’t use this in a vacuum,” he said. “It increases our confidence and consensus, but it has to be incorporated into a multidisciplinary discussion group.”
Part of the diagnostic pathway
Dr. Dilling said the genomic classifier should be considered part of a diagnostic pathway in uncertain cases, particularly when the risk of surgical lung biopsy is high.
Current clinical practice guidelines recommend surgical lung biopsy for histopathologic diagnosis when clinical and radiologic findings are not definitive for IPF, the speaker said.
However, surgical lung biopsy carries some risk, and sometimes it can’t be done, he added.
In his presentation, Dr. Dilling cited a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies looking at surgical lung biopsy for the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases.
The postoperative mortality rate was 3.6% in that meta-analysis, published in 2015 in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.
“The final decision regarding whether or not to perform a [surgical lung biopsy] must be based on the balance between benefits to establish a secure diagnosis and the potential risks,” authors wrote at the time.
Mortality risk is higher in immunocompromised and acutely ill patient populations, according to Dr. Dilling, who added that as many of 19% of patients will have complications from surgical lung biopsy.
Genomic classifier studies
In a proof-of-principle study, published in 2017 in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society, authors described how they used machine learning to train an algorithm to distinguish UIP from non-UIP pattern in tissue obtained by transbronchial biopsy (TBB).
The top-performing algorithm distinguished UIP from non-UIP conditions in single TBB samples with specificity of 86% and sensitivity of 63%, according to investigators, who said at the time that independent validation would be needed before the genomic classifier could be applied in clinical settings.
In a prospective validation study, published in 2019 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the genomic classifier identified UIP in TBB samples from 49 patients with a specificity of 88% and sensitivity of 70%.
Excluding patients with definite or probable UIP as shown on high-resolution computed tomography, results show that the classifier had a sensitivity of 76%, specificity of 88%, and positive predictive value of 81%.
“The performance of the test is good, even in that scenario,” Dr. Dilling said.
Real-world results
Dr. Dilling also highlighted a “real-world” study, published earlier in 2021, demonstrating that UIP pattern recognized by a genomic classifier had encouraging sensitivity and specificity when combined with high-resolution CT and clinical factors.
That study included 96 patients who had both diagnostic lung pathology and a transbronchial lung biopsy for molecular testing with the classifier.
The classifier had a sensitivity of 60.3% and a specificity of 92.1% for histology-proven UIP pattern, investigators said in their report, which appears in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Local radiologists identified UIP with a sensitivity of 34.0% and specificity of 96.9%. But adding genomic classifier testing to local radiology testing increased the diagnostic yield, investigators said, with a sensitivity of 79.2% and specificity of 90.6%.
“This might suggest that the implementation of this into a local [multidisciplinary discussion] with your local radiology expertise might really improve your recognition of UIP,” Dr. Dilling said.
Dr. Dilling reported disclosures related to Bellerophon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Nitto Denko, and Lung Bioengineering.
Although genomic testing is useful when an interstitial lung disease diagnosis is uncertain, the testing results themselves aren’t sufficient to make the diagnosis, Daniel Dilling, MD, FCCP, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, which was held virtually.
The genomic classifier (Envisia, Veracyte) helps differentiate idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) by detecting usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), the hallmark pattern of this interstitial lung disease.
However, UIP is just one piece of the larger diagnostic puzzle, according to Dr. Dilling, professor of medicine in the interstitial lung disease program at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill.
“Remember, it’s just a pattern, and not a diagnosis of IPF,” Dr. Dilling said in his presentation.
Genomic classifier results correlate well with both histologic and radiographic UIP pattern, studies show.
However, Dr. Dilling said the value of the genomic classifier is not in isolation.
“We don’t use this in a vacuum,” he said. “It increases our confidence and consensus, but it has to be incorporated into a multidisciplinary discussion group.”
Part of the diagnostic pathway
Dr. Dilling said the genomic classifier should be considered part of a diagnostic pathway in uncertain cases, particularly when the risk of surgical lung biopsy is high.
Current clinical practice guidelines recommend surgical lung biopsy for histopathologic diagnosis when clinical and radiologic findings are not definitive for IPF, the speaker said.
However, surgical lung biopsy carries some risk, and sometimes it can’t be done, he added.
In his presentation, Dr. Dilling cited a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies looking at surgical lung biopsy for the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases.
The postoperative mortality rate was 3.6% in that meta-analysis, published in 2015 in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.
“The final decision regarding whether or not to perform a [surgical lung biopsy] must be based on the balance between benefits to establish a secure diagnosis and the potential risks,” authors wrote at the time.
Mortality risk is higher in immunocompromised and acutely ill patient populations, according to Dr. Dilling, who added that as many of 19% of patients will have complications from surgical lung biopsy.
Genomic classifier studies
In a proof-of-principle study, published in 2017 in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society, authors described how they used machine learning to train an algorithm to distinguish UIP from non-UIP pattern in tissue obtained by transbronchial biopsy (TBB).
The top-performing algorithm distinguished UIP from non-UIP conditions in single TBB samples with specificity of 86% and sensitivity of 63%, according to investigators, who said at the time that independent validation would be needed before the genomic classifier could be applied in clinical settings.
In a prospective validation study, published in 2019 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the genomic classifier identified UIP in TBB samples from 49 patients with a specificity of 88% and sensitivity of 70%.
Excluding patients with definite or probable UIP as shown on high-resolution computed tomography, results show that the classifier had a sensitivity of 76%, specificity of 88%, and positive predictive value of 81%.
“The performance of the test is good, even in that scenario,” Dr. Dilling said.
Real-world results
Dr. Dilling also highlighted a “real-world” study, published earlier in 2021, demonstrating that UIP pattern recognized by a genomic classifier had encouraging sensitivity and specificity when combined with high-resolution CT and clinical factors.
That study included 96 patients who had both diagnostic lung pathology and a transbronchial lung biopsy for molecular testing with the classifier.
The classifier had a sensitivity of 60.3% and a specificity of 92.1% for histology-proven UIP pattern, investigators said in their report, which appears in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Local radiologists identified UIP with a sensitivity of 34.0% and specificity of 96.9%. But adding genomic classifier testing to local radiology testing increased the diagnostic yield, investigators said, with a sensitivity of 79.2% and specificity of 90.6%.
“This might suggest that the implementation of this into a local [multidisciplinary discussion] with your local radiology expertise might really improve your recognition of UIP,” Dr. Dilling said.
Dr. Dilling reported disclosures related to Bellerophon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Nitto Denko, and Lung Bioengineering.
Although genomic testing is useful when an interstitial lung disease diagnosis is uncertain, the testing results themselves aren’t sufficient to make the diagnosis, Daniel Dilling, MD, FCCP, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians, which was held virtually.
The genomic classifier (Envisia, Veracyte) helps differentiate idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) by detecting usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), the hallmark pattern of this interstitial lung disease.
However, UIP is just one piece of the larger diagnostic puzzle, according to Dr. Dilling, professor of medicine in the interstitial lung disease program at Loyola University Medical Center in Maywood, Ill.
“Remember, it’s just a pattern, and not a diagnosis of IPF,” Dr. Dilling said in his presentation.
Genomic classifier results correlate well with both histologic and radiographic UIP pattern, studies show.
However, Dr. Dilling said the value of the genomic classifier is not in isolation.
“We don’t use this in a vacuum,” he said. “It increases our confidence and consensus, but it has to be incorporated into a multidisciplinary discussion group.”
Part of the diagnostic pathway
Dr. Dilling said the genomic classifier should be considered part of a diagnostic pathway in uncertain cases, particularly when the risk of surgical lung biopsy is high.
Current clinical practice guidelines recommend surgical lung biopsy for histopathologic diagnosis when clinical and radiologic findings are not definitive for IPF, the speaker said.
However, surgical lung biopsy carries some risk, and sometimes it can’t be done, he added.
In his presentation, Dr. Dilling cited a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies looking at surgical lung biopsy for the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases.
The postoperative mortality rate was 3.6% in that meta-analysis, published in 2015 in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.
“The final decision regarding whether or not to perform a [surgical lung biopsy] must be based on the balance between benefits to establish a secure diagnosis and the potential risks,” authors wrote at the time.
Mortality risk is higher in immunocompromised and acutely ill patient populations, according to Dr. Dilling, who added that as many of 19% of patients will have complications from surgical lung biopsy.
Genomic classifier studies
In a proof-of-principle study, published in 2017 in the Annals of the American Thoracic Society, authors described how they used machine learning to train an algorithm to distinguish UIP from non-UIP pattern in tissue obtained by transbronchial biopsy (TBB).
The top-performing algorithm distinguished UIP from non-UIP conditions in single TBB samples with specificity of 86% and sensitivity of 63%, according to investigators, who said at the time that independent validation would be needed before the genomic classifier could be applied in clinical settings.
In a prospective validation study, published in 2019 in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, the genomic classifier identified UIP in TBB samples from 49 patients with a specificity of 88% and sensitivity of 70%.
Excluding patients with definite or probable UIP as shown on high-resolution computed tomography, results show that the classifier had a sensitivity of 76%, specificity of 88%, and positive predictive value of 81%.
“The performance of the test is good, even in that scenario,” Dr. Dilling said.
Real-world results
Dr. Dilling also highlighted a “real-world” study, published earlier in 2021, demonstrating that UIP pattern recognized by a genomic classifier had encouraging sensitivity and specificity when combined with high-resolution CT and clinical factors.
That study included 96 patients who had both diagnostic lung pathology and a transbronchial lung biopsy for molecular testing with the classifier.
The classifier had a sensitivity of 60.3% and a specificity of 92.1% for histology-proven UIP pattern, investigators said in their report, which appears in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Local radiologists identified UIP with a sensitivity of 34.0% and specificity of 96.9%. But adding genomic classifier testing to local radiology testing increased the diagnostic yield, investigators said, with a sensitivity of 79.2% and specificity of 90.6%.
“This might suggest that the implementation of this into a local [multidisciplinary discussion] with your local radiology expertise might really improve your recognition of UIP,” Dr. Dilling said.
Dr. Dilling reported disclosures related to Bellerophon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Nitto Denko, and Lung Bioengineering.
FROM CHEST 2021
Novel bronchoscopic interventions appear promising for patients with COPD
Several emerging bronchoscopic treatments have the potential to improve the quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
Targeted lung denervation is one promising novel therapeutic option that is safe and may improve clinical outcomes according to investigator Christian Ghattas, MD.
Data from an ongoing phase 3 randomized controlled trial may provide new information on the efficacy of targeted lung denervation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), said Dr. Ghattas, assistant professor of medicine and associate program director for the interventional pulmonary fellowship at The Ohio State University Medical Center in Columbus.
“Outcome data of longer follow-up on previously treated patients will provide us with more information on the durability and the effect of this treatment,” Dr. Ghattas said in an online presentation at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.
Meanwhile, a few compelling bronchoscopic treatment modalities for patients with chronic bronchitis are in earlier stages of clinical development. “Larger randomized, controlled trials are ongoing to confirm the available data and to evaluate treatment durability,” said Dr. Ghattas.
Targeted lung denervation
The targeted lung denervation system under study (dNerva®, Nuvaira Inc.) involves the use of a radiofrequency catheter to ablate the peribronchial branches of the vagus nerve, Dr. Ghattas said.
The goal of disrupting pulmonary nerve input is to achieve sustained bronchodilation and reduce mucous secretion, thereby simulating the effect of anticholinergic drugs, he added.
In pilot studies, the targeted lung denervation system demonstrated its feasibility and safety, while modifications to the system reduced the rate of serious adverse events, according to Dr. Ghattas.
In the AIRFLOW-1 study, which evaluated the safety of the latest generation version of the system, 30 patients with COPD were randomized to targeted lung denervation at one of two doses, 29 or 32 watts.
Of those 30 patients, 29 (96.7%) had procedural success, meaning the catheter was inserted, guided to its intended location, and removed intact with no reported in-hospital serious adverse events, according to results published in Respiration.
There was no difference between arms in the primary endpoint, which was the rate of adverse airway effects requiring intervention that were associated with targeted lung denervation, investigators reported. Four such events occurred, in 3 of 15 patients treated with 32 watts and 1 of 15 patients treated with 29 watts.
Procedural success, defined as device success without an in-hospital serious adverse event, was 96.7% (29/30). The rate of TLD-associated adverse airway effects requiring intervention was 3/15 in the 32 W versus 1/15 in the 29 W group (P = .6). However, serious gastric events were noted in five patients, prompting safety improvements and procedural enhancements that reduced both gastrointestinal and airway events, according to the study report.
Further data are available from AIRFLOW-2, a randomized, sham-controlled trial enrolling patients with symptomatic COPD.
In that study, targeted lung denervation plus optimal drug treatment led to fewer respiratory adverse events of interest, including hospitalizations for COPD exacerbation, according to a report on the study that appears in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Respiratory adverse events occurred in 32% of treated patients versus 71% of sham-treated patients in a predefined 3- to 6.5-month postprocedure window, the report says.
Currently underway is AIRFLOW-3, a randomized study of targeted lung denervation versus sham procedure in patients with COPD. The study has a primary outcome measure of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations over 12 months and is slated to enroll 480 patients.
To be eligible for AIRFLOW-3, patients must have had at least two moderate or one severe COPD exacerbation in the previous year, Dr. Ghattas said.
Metered cryospray
One novel intervention with the potential to benefit patients with chronic bronchitis is metered cryospray (RejuvenAir), which works by delivering liquid nitrogen to the tracheobronchial airways, according to Dr. Ghattas.
This targeted delivery ablates abnormal epithelium, facilitating the regeneration of healthy mucosa, according to investigators in a recently published single-arm prospective trial.
Metered cryospray was safe, feasible, and linked to clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients with COPD, according to authors of the study, which appears in the European Respiratory Journal.
In the study, 34 of 35 participants received three treatments 4-6 weeks apart.
Investigators reported that at 3 months there were significant reductions in the COPD Assessment Test that were durable to 6 months, and changes in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire that were durable to 9 months.
There were 14 serious adverse events, none of which were device- or procedure related, according to investigators.
An ongoing randomized study called SPRAY-CB is comparing metered cryospray to sham procedure in an anticipated 210 patients with COPD with chronic bronchitis.
Bronchial rheoplasty
Bronchial rheoplasty (RheOx, Gala Therapeutics), is another promising intervention under investigation for the treatment of chronic bronchitis, according to Dr. Ghattas.
This system delivers nonthermal pulsed electrical energy, Dr. Ghattas said, with the intention of ablating goblet cells in the airways.
“The preclinical studies have demonstrated epithelial ablation, followed by regeneration of normalized epithelium,” he said in his presentation.
In 12-month results of multicenter clinical trial, bronchial rheoplasty was technically feasible and safe, with reductions in goblet cell hyperplasia and changes in patient-reported quality of life seen following the procedure, investigators reported in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The mean goblet cell hyperplasia score was reduced by 39% from baseline to treatment, according to study results. Four procedure-related serious adverse events were observed through 6 months, and there were no procedure- or device-related serious adverse events over the next 6 months. Mild hemoptysis occurred in 47% of patients, investigators reported.
A larger randomized, double-blind prospective trial with a sham control arm is underway and will include 270 patients, according to Dr. Ghattas. “We’re going to have to wait for the results,” he said.
Dr. Ghattas reported serving as a site principal investigator for clinical trials involving the bronchoscopic interventions he discussed, including AIRFLOW-3 (evaluating the targeted lung denervation system), SPRAY-CB (metered cryospray), and RheSolve (bronchial rheoplasty).
Several emerging bronchoscopic treatments have the potential to improve the quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
Targeted lung denervation is one promising novel therapeutic option that is safe and may improve clinical outcomes according to investigator Christian Ghattas, MD.
Data from an ongoing phase 3 randomized controlled trial may provide new information on the efficacy of targeted lung denervation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), said Dr. Ghattas, assistant professor of medicine and associate program director for the interventional pulmonary fellowship at The Ohio State University Medical Center in Columbus.
“Outcome data of longer follow-up on previously treated patients will provide us with more information on the durability and the effect of this treatment,” Dr. Ghattas said in an online presentation at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.
Meanwhile, a few compelling bronchoscopic treatment modalities for patients with chronic bronchitis are in earlier stages of clinical development. “Larger randomized, controlled trials are ongoing to confirm the available data and to evaluate treatment durability,” said Dr. Ghattas.
Targeted lung denervation
The targeted lung denervation system under study (dNerva®, Nuvaira Inc.) involves the use of a radiofrequency catheter to ablate the peribronchial branches of the vagus nerve, Dr. Ghattas said.
The goal of disrupting pulmonary nerve input is to achieve sustained bronchodilation and reduce mucous secretion, thereby simulating the effect of anticholinergic drugs, he added.
In pilot studies, the targeted lung denervation system demonstrated its feasibility and safety, while modifications to the system reduced the rate of serious adverse events, according to Dr. Ghattas.
In the AIRFLOW-1 study, which evaluated the safety of the latest generation version of the system, 30 patients with COPD were randomized to targeted lung denervation at one of two doses, 29 or 32 watts.
Of those 30 patients, 29 (96.7%) had procedural success, meaning the catheter was inserted, guided to its intended location, and removed intact with no reported in-hospital serious adverse events, according to results published in Respiration.
There was no difference between arms in the primary endpoint, which was the rate of adverse airway effects requiring intervention that were associated with targeted lung denervation, investigators reported. Four such events occurred, in 3 of 15 patients treated with 32 watts and 1 of 15 patients treated with 29 watts.
Procedural success, defined as device success without an in-hospital serious adverse event, was 96.7% (29/30). The rate of TLD-associated adverse airway effects requiring intervention was 3/15 in the 32 W versus 1/15 in the 29 W group (P = .6). However, serious gastric events were noted in five patients, prompting safety improvements and procedural enhancements that reduced both gastrointestinal and airway events, according to the study report.
Further data are available from AIRFLOW-2, a randomized, sham-controlled trial enrolling patients with symptomatic COPD.
In that study, targeted lung denervation plus optimal drug treatment led to fewer respiratory adverse events of interest, including hospitalizations for COPD exacerbation, according to a report on the study that appears in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Respiratory adverse events occurred in 32% of treated patients versus 71% of sham-treated patients in a predefined 3- to 6.5-month postprocedure window, the report says.
Currently underway is AIRFLOW-3, a randomized study of targeted lung denervation versus sham procedure in patients with COPD. The study has a primary outcome measure of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations over 12 months and is slated to enroll 480 patients.
To be eligible for AIRFLOW-3, patients must have had at least two moderate or one severe COPD exacerbation in the previous year, Dr. Ghattas said.
Metered cryospray
One novel intervention with the potential to benefit patients with chronic bronchitis is metered cryospray (RejuvenAir), which works by delivering liquid nitrogen to the tracheobronchial airways, according to Dr. Ghattas.
This targeted delivery ablates abnormal epithelium, facilitating the regeneration of healthy mucosa, according to investigators in a recently published single-arm prospective trial.
Metered cryospray was safe, feasible, and linked to clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients with COPD, according to authors of the study, which appears in the European Respiratory Journal.
In the study, 34 of 35 participants received three treatments 4-6 weeks apart.
Investigators reported that at 3 months there were significant reductions in the COPD Assessment Test that were durable to 6 months, and changes in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire that were durable to 9 months.
There were 14 serious adverse events, none of which were device- or procedure related, according to investigators.
An ongoing randomized study called SPRAY-CB is comparing metered cryospray to sham procedure in an anticipated 210 patients with COPD with chronic bronchitis.
Bronchial rheoplasty
Bronchial rheoplasty (RheOx, Gala Therapeutics), is another promising intervention under investigation for the treatment of chronic bronchitis, according to Dr. Ghattas.
This system delivers nonthermal pulsed electrical energy, Dr. Ghattas said, with the intention of ablating goblet cells in the airways.
“The preclinical studies have demonstrated epithelial ablation, followed by regeneration of normalized epithelium,” he said in his presentation.
In 12-month results of multicenter clinical trial, bronchial rheoplasty was technically feasible and safe, with reductions in goblet cell hyperplasia and changes in patient-reported quality of life seen following the procedure, investigators reported in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The mean goblet cell hyperplasia score was reduced by 39% from baseline to treatment, according to study results. Four procedure-related serious adverse events were observed through 6 months, and there were no procedure- or device-related serious adverse events over the next 6 months. Mild hemoptysis occurred in 47% of patients, investigators reported.
A larger randomized, double-blind prospective trial with a sham control arm is underway and will include 270 patients, according to Dr. Ghattas. “We’re going to have to wait for the results,” he said.
Dr. Ghattas reported serving as a site principal investigator for clinical trials involving the bronchoscopic interventions he discussed, including AIRFLOW-3 (evaluating the targeted lung denervation system), SPRAY-CB (metered cryospray), and RheSolve (bronchial rheoplasty).
Several emerging bronchoscopic treatments have the potential to improve the quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, an investigator reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
Targeted lung denervation is one promising novel therapeutic option that is safe and may improve clinical outcomes according to investigator Christian Ghattas, MD.
Data from an ongoing phase 3 randomized controlled trial may provide new information on the efficacy of targeted lung denervation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), said Dr. Ghattas, assistant professor of medicine and associate program director for the interventional pulmonary fellowship at The Ohio State University Medical Center in Columbus.
“Outcome data of longer follow-up on previously treated patients will provide us with more information on the durability and the effect of this treatment,” Dr. Ghattas said in an online presentation at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.
Meanwhile, a few compelling bronchoscopic treatment modalities for patients with chronic bronchitis are in earlier stages of clinical development. “Larger randomized, controlled trials are ongoing to confirm the available data and to evaluate treatment durability,” said Dr. Ghattas.
Targeted lung denervation
The targeted lung denervation system under study (dNerva®, Nuvaira Inc.) involves the use of a radiofrequency catheter to ablate the peribronchial branches of the vagus nerve, Dr. Ghattas said.
The goal of disrupting pulmonary nerve input is to achieve sustained bronchodilation and reduce mucous secretion, thereby simulating the effect of anticholinergic drugs, he added.
In pilot studies, the targeted lung denervation system demonstrated its feasibility and safety, while modifications to the system reduced the rate of serious adverse events, according to Dr. Ghattas.
In the AIRFLOW-1 study, which evaluated the safety of the latest generation version of the system, 30 patients with COPD were randomized to targeted lung denervation at one of two doses, 29 or 32 watts.
Of those 30 patients, 29 (96.7%) had procedural success, meaning the catheter was inserted, guided to its intended location, and removed intact with no reported in-hospital serious adverse events, according to results published in Respiration.
There was no difference between arms in the primary endpoint, which was the rate of adverse airway effects requiring intervention that were associated with targeted lung denervation, investigators reported. Four such events occurred, in 3 of 15 patients treated with 32 watts and 1 of 15 patients treated with 29 watts.
Procedural success, defined as device success without an in-hospital serious adverse event, was 96.7% (29/30). The rate of TLD-associated adverse airway effects requiring intervention was 3/15 in the 32 W versus 1/15 in the 29 W group (P = .6). However, serious gastric events were noted in five patients, prompting safety improvements and procedural enhancements that reduced both gastrointestinal and airway events, according to the study report.
Further data are available from AIRFLOW-2, a randomized, sham-controlled trial enrolling patients with symptomatic COPD.
In that study, targeted lung denervation plus optimal drug treatment led to fewer respiratory adverse events of interest, including hospitalizations for COPD exacerbation, according to a report on the study that appears in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
Respiratory adverse events occurred in 32% of treated patients versus 71% of sham-treated patients in a predefined 3- to 6.5-month postprocedure window, the report says.
Currently underway is AIRFLOW-3, a randomized study of targeted lung denervation versus sham procedure in patients with COPD. The study has a primary outcome measure of moderate or severe COPD exacerbations over 12 months and is slated to enroll 480 patients.
To be eligible for AIRFLOW-3, patients must have had at least two moderate or one severe COPD exacerbation in the previous year, Dr. Ghattas said.
Metered cryospray
One novel intervention with the potential to benefit patients with chronic bronchitis is metered cryospray (RejuvenAir), which works by delivering liquid nitrogen to the tracheobronchial airways, according to Dr. Ghattas.
This targeted delivery ablates abnormal epithelium, facilitating the regeneration of healthy mucosa, according to investigators in a recently published single-arm prospective trial.
Metered cryospray was safe, feasible, and linked to clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients with COPD, according to authors of the study, which appears in the European Respiratory Journal.
In the study, 34 of 35 participants received three treatments 4-6 weeks apart.
Investigators reported that at 3 months there were significant reductions in the COPD Assessment Test that were durable to 6 months, and changes in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and the Leicester Cough Questionnaire that were durable to 9 months.
There were 14 serious adverse events, none of which were device- or procedure related, according to investigators.
An ongoing randomized study called SPRAY-CB is comparing metered cryospray to sham procedure in an anticipated 210 patients with COPD with chronic bronchitis.
Bronchial rheoplasty
Bronchial rheoplasty (RheOx, Gala Therapeutics), is another promising intervention under investigation for the treatment of chronic bronchitis, according to Dr. Ghattas.
This system delivers nonthermal pulsed electrical energy, Dr. Ghattas said, with the intention of ablating goblet cells in the airways.
“The preclinical studies have demonstrated epithelial ablation, followed by regeneration of normalized epithelium,” he said in his presentation.
In 12-month results of multicenter clinical trial, bronchial rheoplasty was technically feasible and safe, with reductions in goblet cell hyperplasia and changes in patient-reported quality of life seen following the procedure, investigators reported in The American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The mean goblet cell hyperplasia score was reduced by 39% from baseline to treatment, according to study results. Four procedure-related serious adverse events were observed through 6 months, and there were no procedure- or device-related serious adverse events over the next 6 months. Mild hemoptysis occurred in 47% of patients, investigators reported.
A larger randomized, double-blind prospective trial with a sham control arm is underway and will include 270 patients, according to Dr. Ghattas. “We’re going to have to wait for the results,” he said.
Dr. Ghattas reported serving as a site principal investigator for clinical trials involving the bronchoscopic interventions he discussed, including AIRFLOW-3 (evaluating the targeted lung denervation system), SPRAY-CB (metered cryospray), and RheSolve (bronchial rheoplasty).
FROM CHEST 2021
Fungal infection can mimic lung cancer metastases
A fungal infection typically seen in the lungs may have a variety of unusual clinical presentations elsewhere in the body, even raising suspicion of cancer in some cases, a medical resident reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
In one recent and unusual presentation, a 58-year-old woman with persistent headaches had skull lesions on computed tomography (CT) was eventually diagnosed with disseminated coccidioidomycosis (Valley fever), a fungal infection endemic to the Southwestern U.S.
The imaging pattern of her head CT was initially concerning for cancer metastasis, according to Sharjeel Israr, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Creighton University in Phoenix, Ariz.
However, the subsequent chest CT revealed a suspicious chest mass. A biopsy of that mass led to the correct diagnosis of disseminated coccidioidomycosis, according to Dr. Israr, who presented the case report in an e-poster at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.
Mistaken identity
Coccidioidomycosis, caused by the fungus Coccidioides, usually affects the lungs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, in severe cases it can spread to other parts of the body. In those cases, it’s referred to as disseminated coccidioidomycosis.
Arizona accounted for about 10,000 out of 18,000 reported Valley fever cases in 2019, according to the latest statistics from the CDC.
Coccidioidomycosis is frequently mistaken not only for cancer, but also for rheumatic conditions and bacterial infections, according to Valley fever specialist John Galgiani, MD, director of the Valley Fever Center for Excellence at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
“Where Valley fever is common, it should very frequently be in the differential for masses that are thought to be cancer,” Dr. Galgiani said in an interview. “This case is a good example of that.”
Challenging case
In an interview, Dr. Israr said the case was challenging to crack despite the fact that Valley fever is very common in Phoenix.
“It was definitely on the differential from the get-go, but it was very, very low our differential, just based on the presentation that she had,” said Dr. Israr.
The patient had history of diabetes and presented with headaches for 4 weeks. However, she had no pulmonary symptoms or meningeal signs, according to Dr. Israr.
A head CT revealed multiple osseous skull lesions and a left temporal lobe lesion.
“The fact that this patient had lesions in the skull, specifically, is something that raised our initial red flags for cancer – especially since she presented with just a headache as her only complaint,” he said.
The imaging pattern was concerning for metastasis, according to Dr. Israr, particularly since a subsequent CT of the chest showed multiple pulmonary nodules plus a 7.7-cm mass in the right lower lobe.
Once the biopsy confirmed coccidioidomycosis, the patient was started on fluconazole 600 mg twice daily, according to Dr. Israr.
Although severe disseminated coccidioidomycosis can be difficult to treat, the lung lesion had decreased in size from 7.7 cm to 4.2 cm about 3 months later, Dr. Israr said.
“At the end of the day, she didn’t have cancer, and it’s something that we’re treating and she’s actually doing better right now,” Dr. Israr said in the interview.
Dr. Israr and coauthors of the case reported they had no relevant relationships to disclose.
A fungal infection typically seen in the lungs may have a variety of unusual clinical presentations elsewhere in the body, even raising suspicion of cancer in some cases, a medical resident reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
In one recent and unusual presentation, a 58-year-old woman with persistent headaches had skull lesions on computed tomography (CT) was eventually diagnosed with disseminated coccidioidomycosis (Valley fever), a fungal infection endemic to the Southwestern U.S.
The imaging pattern of her head CT was initially concerning for cancer metastasis, according to Sharjeel Israr, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Creighton University in Phoenix, Ariz.
However, the subsequent chest CT revealed a suspicious chest mass. A biopsy of that mass led to the correct diagnosis of disseminated coccidioidomycosis, according to Dr. Israr, who presented the case report in an e-poster at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.
Mistaken identity
Coccidioidomycosis, caused by the fungus Coccidioides, usually affects the lungs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, in severe cases it can spread to other parts of the body. In those cases, it’s referred to as disseminated coccidioidomycosis.
Arizona accounted for about 10,000 out of 18,000 reported Valley fever cases in 2019, according to the latest statistics from the CDC.
Coccidioidomycosis is frequently mistaken not only for cancer, but also for rheumatic conditions and bacterial infections, according to Valley fever specialist John Galgiani, MD, director of the Valley Fever Center for Excellence at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
“Where Valley fever is common, it should very frequently be in the differential for masses that are thought to be cancer,” Dr. Galgiani said in an interview. “This case is a good example of that.”
Challenging case
In an interview, Dr. Israr said the case was challenging to crack despite the fact that Valley fever is very common in Phoenix.
“It was definitely on the differential from the get-go, but it was very, very low our differential, just based on the presentation that she had,” said Dr. Israr.
The patient had history of diabetes and presented with headaches for 4 weeks. However, she had no pulmonary symptoms or meningeal signs, according to Dr. Israr.
A head CT revealed multiple osseous skull lesions and a left temporal lobe lesion.
“The fact that this patient had lesions in the skull, specifically, is something that raised our initial red flags for cancer – especially since she presented with just a headache as her only complaint,” he said.
The imaging pattern was concerning for metastasis, according to Dr. Israr, particularly since a subsequent CT of the chest showed multiple pulmonary nodules plus a 7.7-cm mass in the right lower lobe.
Once the biopsy confirmed coccidioidomycosis, the patient was started on fluconazole 600 mg twice daily, according to Dr. Israr.
Although severe disseminated coccidioidomycosis can be difficult to treat, the lung lesion had decreased in size from 7.7 cm to 4.2 cm about 3 months later, Dr. Israr said.
“At the end of the day, she didn’t have cancer, and it’s something that we’re treating and she’s actually doing better right now,” Dr. Israr said in the interview.
Dr. Israr and coauthors of the case reported they had no relevant relationships to disclose.
A fungal infection typically seen in the lungs may have a variety of unusual clinical presentations elsewhere in the body, even raising suspicion of cancer in some cases, a medical resident reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.
In one recent and unusual presentation, a 58-year-old woman with persistent headaches had skull lesions on computed tomography (CT) was eventually diagnosed with disseminated coccidioidomycosis (Valley fever), a fungal infection endemic to the Southwestern U.S.
The imaging pattern of her head CT was initially concerning for cancer metastasis, according to Sharjeel Israr, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Creighton University in Phoenix, Ariz.
However, the subsequent chest CT revealed a suspicious chest mass. A biopsy of that mass led to the correct diagnosis of disseminated coccidioidomycosis, according to Dr. Israr, who presented the case report in an e-poster at the CHEST meeting, which was held virtually this year.
Mistaken identity
Coccidioidomycosis, caused by the fungus Coccidioides, usually affects the lungs, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, in severe cases it can spread to other parts of the body. In those cases, it’s referred to as disseminated coccidioidomycosis.
Arizona accounted for about 10,000 out of 18,000 reported Valley fever cases in 2019, according to the latest statistics from the CDC.
Coccidioidomycosis is frequently mistaken not only for cancer, but also for rheumatic conditions and bacterial infections, according to Valley fever specialist John Galgiani, MD, director of the Valley Fever Center for Excellence at the University of Arizona in Tucson.
“Where Valley fever is common, it should very frequently be in the differential for masses that are thought to be cancer,” Dr. Galgiani said in an interview. “This case is a good example of that.”
Challenging case
In an interview, Dr. Israr said the case was challenging to crack despite the fact that Valley fever is very common in Phoenix.
“It was definitely on the differential from the get-go, but it was very, very low our differential, just based on the presentation that she had,” said Dr. Israr.
The patient had history of diabetes and presented with headaches for 4 weeks. However, she had no pulmonary symptoms or meningeal signs, according to Dr. Israr.
A head CT revealed multiple osseous skull lesions and a left temporal lobe lesion.
“The fact that this patient had lesions in the skull, specifically, is something that raised our initial red flags for cancer – especially since she presented with just a headache as her only complaint,” he said.
The imaging pattern was concerning for metastasis, according to Dr. Israr, particularly since a subsequent CT of the chest showed multiple pulmonary nodules plus a 7.7-cm mass in the right lower lobe.
Once the biopsy confirmed coccidioidomycosis, the patient was started on fluconazole 600 mg twice daily, according to Dr. Israr.
Although severe disseminated coccidioidomycosis can be difficult to treat, the lung lesion had decreased in size from 7.7 cm to 4.2 cm about 3 months later, Dr. Israr said.
“At the end of the day, she didn’t have cancer, and it’s something that we’re treating and she’s actually doing better right now,” Dr. Israr said in the interview.
Dr. Israr and coauthors of the case reported they had no relevant relationships to disclose.
REPORTING FROM CHEST 2021