Hematology News

Children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) treated with eltrombopag as a frontline therapy show significantly improved platelet responses and other outcomes compared with the standard of care.

“This is the first time in 30 years that a new drug is being tested for newly diagnosed pediatric ITP,” said the study’s lead author, Kristin A. Shimano, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco, in a press statement for the study, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting earlier this month.

“We really think that this has the potential to transform the approach to the management of ITP in the newly diagnosed phase with the use of a therapy that can provide sustained hemostatic platelet counts to bridge the time that patients are at risk of bleeding events with the goal to wean off the medication for patients who have a natural resolution of their disease,” Shimano said in her talk.

While children with ITP, a rare autoimmune blood disorder, very often improve without the need for any treatment, some do require intervention, and the condition can become chronic. First-line therapies for those patients commonly include corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and anti-D globulin; however, side effects can be undesirable, and with their efficacy often temporary, patients can require monitoring and juggling of treatments.

Eltrombopag, an oral, daily thrombopoietin receptor agonist, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for children and adults with chronic ITP in 2015; however, research has been lacking on the benefits of the therapy for newly diagnosed pediatric patients.

To investigate the drug’s efficacy at that stage, Shimano and colleagues with the ITP Consortium of North America launched the prospective, open-label Pediatric ITP Newly diagnosed pts Epag vs Standard therapy (PINES) trial, enrolling 118 patients at 23 institutions between May 2019 and January 2024.

All enrollees had been diagnosed with ITP within 3 months and had been determined by their treating hematologist to require pharmacologic treatment.

Of the patients, about 40% were untreated, and 60% had been treated with at least one medication prior to the trial but did not have a lasting response.

The patients were stratified by age and prior treatment and randomized 2:1 to receive either eltrombopag (n = 78) or the investigator’s choice of one of three standard first-line therapies, including prednisone, IVIg, or anti-D globulin at specified doses (n = 40). Overall, 29 in the standard-of-care arm received prednisone and 11 received IVIg. The patients had a median age of 8 years.

For the study’s primary endpoint, patients in the eltrombopag group had a significantly greater sustained response at 12 weeks, defined as having at least three of four platelet counts > 50 × 109/L during weeks 6-12 without the need for rescue treatment, with a rate of 63% vs 35% in the standard-of-care group (P = .0054).

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proportion of patients with a high bleeding score at weeks 1-4 and week 12.

However, those in the eltrombopag arm had a significantly lower rate of receiving rescue therapy (18% vs 38% with the standard of care; P = .02).

Both groups showed clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in terms of health-related quality of life, as assessed by parent proxy-reported KIT overall scores.

Twenty adverse events that were grade 3 or higher, including six serious adverse events, occurred in each of the study’s arms, with the most common events including headache and epistaxis.

Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred among six patients in the eltrombopag group and one in the control group, but importantly, no thromboembolic events were reported.

One intracranial hemorrhage occurred in the eltrombopag arm.

With eltrombopag having a slower effect than some other treatments, Shimano cautioned that the therapy is not recommended for patients with severe bleeding.

“Patients with grade 4 or 5 bleeding at the time of screening were specifically excluded from the study, so for patients who have very severe bleeding who need to get their platelets up very quickly, this would not be the ideal therapy for them,” she noted.

On the basis of results, the trial was recommended to close early due to efficacy; however, the participants are being followed for a total of 12 months to determine the durability of the responses, including in terms of bleeding events, quality of life, or the development of chronic ITP.

“We have shown that in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed ITP requiring pharmacologic treatment, eltrombopag resulted in a significant, clinically relevant higher rate of a durable platelet response in the absence of rescue treatment as compared with standard first-line therapies,” Shimano said.

“Eltrombopag could certainly be added to the medication choices hematologists consider as they are making treatment decisions with families, and it is an option that could potentially raise platelets for a more sustained period in children with ITP in the newly diagnosed period, which is one of the most difficult times for patients with regard to the impact of the disease on bleeding symptoms and quality of life,” she added.

Commenting on the study, James B. Bussel, MD, emeritus professor of pediatrics, medicine and obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, commented that “generally, a short-term increase in platelets is the biggest challenge, which is getting the patient to the point of not requiring future treatment to get better.”

“If more children can be shown to be going into remission earlier, that would be great,” he said.

While eltrombopag is known to be effective in chronic ITP, a key caveat of its use in newly diagnosed patients is the question of whether patients will get better on their own and feasibly be able to be spared the cost and burden of treatment in the first place.

However, identifying which patients will fit that profile isn’t always easy.

“Exactly which child needs treatment can be hard to determine, and there is some debate about that,” Bussel noted.

“The theoretic standard is that the platelet count doesn’t matter — only whether the patient is bleeding a lot, and then there is debate over treatment based on bleeding scores,” he said.

Quality-of-life issues, such as patients’ ability to take part in activities, are also a key consideration.

“It would be great if eltrombopag can support children who really need it and provide clear unequivocal benefit beyond just increasing the platelet count, but also leading to better quality of life,” Bussel said.

The new findings are “a very encouraging start, but I’d really like to see what the story is at 1 year.”

The study was funded by Novartis, maker of eltrombopag, and sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America. Shimano disclosed ties with Sanofi, Sobi, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Pfizer. Bussel reported a relationship with Novartis that ended more than 2 years ago.

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

Children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) treated with eltrombopag as a frontline therapy show significantly improved platelet responses and other outcomes compared with the standard of care.

“This is the first time in 30 years that a new drug is being tested for newly diagnosed pediatric ITP,” said the study’s lead author, Kristin A. Shimano, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco, in a press statement for the study, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting earlier this month.

“We really think that this has the potential to transform the approach to the management of ITP in the newly diagnosed phase with the use of a therapy that can provide sustained hemostatic platelet counts to bridge the time that patients are at risk of bleeding events with the goal to wean off the medication for patients who have a natural resolution of their disease,” Shimano said in her talk.

While children with ITP, a rare autoimmune blood disorder, very often improve without the need for any treatment, some do require intervention, and the condition can become chronic. First-line therapies for those patients commonly include corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and anti-D globulin; however, side effects can be undesirable, and with their efficacy often temporary, patients can require monitoring and juggling of treatments.

Eltrombopag, an oral, daily thrombopoietin receptor agonist, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for children and adults with chronic ITP in 2015; however, research has been lacking on the benefits of the therapy for newly diagnosed pediatric patients.

To investigate the drug’s efficacy at that stage, Shimano and colleagues with the ITP Consortium of North America launched the prospective, open-label Pediatric ITP Newly diagnosed pts Epag vs Standard therapy (PINES) trial, enrolling 118 patients at 23 institutions between May 2019 and January 2024.

All enrollees had been diagnosed with ITP within 3 months and had been determined by their treating hematologist to require pharmacologic treatment.

Of the patients, about 40% were untreated, and 60% had been treated with at least one medication prior to the trial but did not have a lasting response.

The patients were stratified by age and prior treatment and randomized 2:1 to receive either eltrombopag (n = 78) or the investigator’s choice of one of three standard first-line therapies, including prednisone, IVIg, or anti-D globulin at specified doses (n = 40). Overall, 29 in the standard-of-care arm received prednisone and 11 received IVIg. The patients had a median age of 8 years.

For the study’s primary endpoint, patients in the eltrombopag group had a significantly greater sustained response at 12 weeks, defined as having at least three of four platelet counts > 50 × 109/L during weeks 6-12 without the need for rescue treatment, with a rate of 63% vs 35% in the standard-of-care group (P = .0054).

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proportion of patients with a high bleeding score at weeks 1-4 and week 12.

However, those in the eltrombopag arm had a significantly lower rate of receiving rescue therapy (18% vs 38% with the standard of care; P = .02).

Both groups showed clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in terms of health-related quality of life, as assessed by parent proxy-reported KIT overall scores.

Twenty adverse events that were grade 3 or higher, including six serious adverse events, occurred in each of the study’s arms, with the most common events including headache and epistaxis.

Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred among six patients in the eltrombopag group and one in the control group, but importantly, no thromboembolic events were reported.

One intracranial hemorrhage occurred in the eltrombopag arm.

With eltrombopag having a slower effect than some other treatments, Shimano cautioned that the therapy is not recommended for patients with severe bleeding.

“Patients with grade 4 or 5 bleeding at the time of screening were specifically excluded from the study, so for patients who have very severe bleeding who need to get their platelets up very quickly, this would not be the ideal therapy for them,” she noted.

On the basis of results, the trial was recommended to close early due to efficacy; however, the participants are being followed for a total of 12 months to determine the durability of the responses, including in terms of bleeding events, quality of life, or the development of chronic ITP.

“We have shown that in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed ITP requiring pharmacologic treatment, eltrombopag resulted in a significant, clinically relevant higher rate of a durable platelet response in the absence of rescue treatment as compared with standard first-line therapies,” Shimano said.

“Eltrombopag could certainly be added to the medication choices hematologists consider as they are making treatment decisions with families, and it is an option that could potentially raise platelets for a more sustained period in children with ITP in the newly diagnosed period, which is one of the most difficult times for patients with regard to the impact of the disease on bleeding symptoms and quality of life,” she added.

Commenting on the study, James B. Bussel, MD, emeritus professor of pediatrics, medicine and obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, commented that “generally, a short-term increase in platelets is the biggest challenge, which is getting the patient to the point of not requiring future treatment to get better.”

“If more children can be shown to be going into remission earlier, that would be great,” he said.

While eltrombopag is known to be effective in chronic ITP, a key caveat of its use in newly diagnosed patients is the question of whether patients will get better on their own and feasibly be able to be spared the cost and burden of treatment in the first place.

However, identifying which patients will fit that profile isn’t always easy.

“Exactly which child needs treatment can be hard to determine, and there is some debate about that,” Bussel noted.

“The theoretic standard is that the platelet count doesn’t matter — only whether the patient is bleeding a lot, and then there is debate over treatment based on bleeding scores,” he said.

Quality-of-life issues, such as patients’ ability to take part in activities, are also a key consideration.

“It would be great if eltrombopag can support children who really need it and provide clear unequivocal benefit beyond just increasing the platelet count, but also leading to better quality of life,” Bussel said.

The new findings are “a very encouraging start, but I’d really like to see what the story is at 1 year.”

The study was funded by Novartis, maker of eltrombopag, and sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America. Shimano disclosed ties with Sanofi, Sobi, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Pfizer. Bussel reported a relationship with Novartis that ended more than 2 years ago.

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

Children with newly diagnosed immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) treated with eltrombopag as a frontline therapy show significantly improved platelet responses and other outcomes compared with the standard of care.

“This is the first time in 30 years that a new drug is being tested for newly diagnosed pediatric ITP,” said the study’s lead author, Kristin A. Shimano, MD, professor of pediatrics at the Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California San Francisco, in a press statement for the study, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting earlier this month.

“We really think that this has the potential to transform the approach to the management of ITP in the newly diagnosed phase with the use of a therapy that can provide sustained hemostatic platelet counts to bridge the time that patients are at risk of bleeding events with the goal to wean off the medication for patients who have a natural resolution of their disease,” Shimano said in her talk.

While children with ITP, a rare autoimmune blood disorder, very often improve without the need for any treatment, some do require intervention, and the condition can become chronic. First-line therapies for those patients commonly include corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg), and anti-D globulin; however, side effects can be undesirable, and with their efficacy often temporary, patients can require monitoring and juggling of treatments.

Eltrombopag, an oral, daily thrombopoietin receptor agonist, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for children and adults with chronic ITP in 2015; however, research has been lacking on the benefits of the therapy for newly diagnosed pediatric patients.

To investigate the drug’s efficacy at that stage, Shimano and colleagues with the ITP Consortium of North America launched the prospective, open-label Pediatric ITP Newly diagnosed pts Epag vs Standard therapy (PINES) trial, enrolling 118 patients at 23 institutions between May 2019 and January 2024.

All enrollees had been diagnosed with ITP within 3 months and had been determined by their treating hematologist to require pharmacologic treatment.

Of the patients, about 40% were untreated, and 60% had been treated with at least one medication prior to the trial but did not have a lasting response.

The patients were stratified by age and prior treatment and randomized 2:1 to receive either eltrombopag (n = 78) or the investigator’s choice of one of three standard first-line therapies, including prednisone, IVIg, or anti-D globulin at specified doses (n = 40). Overall, 29 in the standard-of-care arm received prednisone and 11 received IVIg. The patients had a median age of 8 years.

For the study’s primary endpoint, patients in the eltrombopag group had a significantly greater sustained response at 12 weeks, defined as having at least three of four platelet counts > 50 × 109/L during weeks 6-12 without the need for rescue treatment, with a rate of 63% vs 35% in the standard-of-care group (P = .0054).

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the proportion of patients with a high bleeding score at weeks 1-4 and week 12.

However, those in the eltrombopag arm had a significantly lower rate of receiving rescue therapy (18% vs 38% with the standard of care; P = .02).

Both groups showed clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in terms of health-related quality of life, as assessed by parent proxy-reported KIT overall scores.

Twenty adverse events that were grade 3 or higher, including six serious adverse events, occurred in each of the study’s arms, with the most common events including headache and epistaxis.

Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred among six patients in the eltrombopag group and one in the control group, but importantly, no thromboembolic events were reported.

One intracranial hemorrhage occurred in the eltrombopag arm.

With eltrombopag having a slower effect than some other treatments, Shimano cautioned that the therapy is not recommended for patients with severe bleeding.

“Patients with grade 4 or 5 bleeding at the time of screening were specifically excluded from the study, so for patients who have very severe bleeding who need to get their platelets up very quickly, this would not be the ideal therapy for them,” she noted.

On the basis of results, the trial was recommended to close early due to efficacy; however, the participants are being followed for a total of 12 months to determine the durability of the responses, including in terms of bleeding events, quality of life, or the development of chronic ITP.

“We have shown that in pediatric patients with newly diagnosed ITP requiring pharmacologic treatment, eltrombopag resulted in a significant, clinically relevant higher rate of a durable platelet response in the absence of rescue treatment as compared with standard first-line therapies,” Shimano said.

“Eltrombopag could certainly be added to the medication choices hematologists consider as they are making treatment decisions with families, and it is an option that could potentially raise platelets for a more sustained period in children with ITP in the newly diagnosed period, which is one of the most difficult times for patients with regard to the impact of the disease on bleeding symptoms and quality of life,” she added.

Commenting on the study, James B. Bussel, MD, emeritus professor of pediatrics, medicine and obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, commented that “generally, a short-term increase in platelets is the biggest challenge, which is getting the patient to the point of not requiring future treatment to get better.”

“If more children can be shown to be going into remission earlier, that would be great,” he said.

While eltrombopag is known to be effective in chronic ITP, a key caveat of its use in newly diagnosed patients is the question of whether patients will get better on their own and feasibly be able to be spared the cost and burden of treatment in the first place.

However, identifying which patients will fit that profile isn’t always easy.

“Exactly which child needs treatment can be hard to determine, and there is some debate about that,” Bussel noted.

“The theoretic standard is that the platelet count doesn’t matter — only whether the patient is bleeding a lot, and then there is debate over treatment based on bleeding scores,” he said.

Quality-of-life issues, such as patients’ ability to take part in activities, are also a key consideration.

“It would be great if eltrombopag can support children who really need it and provide clear unequivocal benefit beyond just increasing the platelet count, but also leading to better quality of life,” Bussel said.

The new findings are “a very encouraging start, but I’d really like to see what the story is at 1 year.”

The study was funded by Novartis, maker of eltrombopag, and sponsored by the ITP Consortium of North America. Shimano disclosed ties with Sanofi, Sobi, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Pfizer. Bussel reported a relationship with Novartis that ended more than 2 years ago.

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

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN DIEGO — The multiple myeloma (MM) drug daratumumab (Darzalex), an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, dramatically reduced progression to active MM or death in patients with high-risk smoldering MM (SMM), a landmark randomized, open-label, phase 3 study found.

Among 390 patients with SMM (194 assigned to daratumumab and 196 to active monitoring), progression to active MM or death over a follow-up of 65.2 (0-76.6) months was 51% lower in the daratumumab group vs active monitoring (34.5% vs 50.5%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67; P < .0001), researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting and in a simultaneous publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Rahul Banerjee, MD, an assistant professor with the University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, both in Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the research, said the study “is a big deal, and I suspect this will ultimately lead to an FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval for daratumumab in this setting. If using daratumumab up-front can prevent further myeloma and therefore make patients live longer, this would be immediately adopted at many practices.”

As study first author Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, MD, of National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and Alexandra General Hospital in Greece, noted at a news briefing, SMM is common, affecting 0.5% of the population aged over 40, per a 2023 Iceland study.

“Standard practice is close follow-up without immediate intervention. However, this oftentimes ends in organ tissue damage, and hypercalcemia, bone lesions, renal impairment, and anemia,” Dimopoulos said.

According to him, researchers launched the AQUILA study in light of indications that daratumumab may benefit patients with intermediate- and high-risk SMM.

For the study, researchers recruited patients from 2017 to 2019 in 23 countries with confirmed high-risk SMM for ≤ 5 years (median age, 64 [31-86] years; 47%-49% men; 83% White).

In the daratumumab group, the drug was administered in 28-day cycles until cycle 39, 36 months, or disease progression, whichever came first (median treatment duration, 38 months [35 months]).

At 5 years, progression-free survival (PFS) — the primary endpoint — was 63.1% (daratumumab) and 40.8% (active monitoring). Researchers estimated 60-month PFS rates at 63.1% and 40.8%, respectively, and overall response rates were 63.4% vs 2.0% (P < .0001), respectively.

The 60-month overall survival rates were 93.0% and 86.9% (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.27-0.98) with 15 deaths in the daratumumab and 26 in the active monitoring group.

“During the follow-up period, there was continuous improvement in favor of the daratumumab arm,” Dimopoulos said. “Even after treatment was discontinued at 3 years, or even at 5 or 6 years, there was a continuous benefit from treatment with daratumumab.”

By clinical cutoff in May 2024, 65% of patients taking daratumumab had finished 39 cycles/3 years of treatment vs 40.8% in the active monitoring group. Progressive disease was the most common reason that patients stopped treatment (21.8% and 41.8% of patients in the groups, respectively).

Grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 40.4% (daratumumab) and 30.1% (active monitoring) of patients. The most common was hypertension (5.7% and 4.6%, respectively).

In the daratumumab group, 5.7% discontinued therapy because of TEAEs, which the researchers described as a “low” number, and fatal TEAEs were similar in both groups (1.0% and 2.0%, respectively).

Banerjee said that “one theoretical risk of using daratumumab monotherapy to treat perceived high-risk SMM is that if the patient actually has active multiple myeloma, you are undertreating them. For anyone with HR-SMM, active multiple myeloma must be completely ruled out. I always insist on both a PET-CT and a whole-body MRI to evaluate the bone marrow comprehensively.”

For now, Banerjee said, clinicians should wait for the US Food and Drug Administration approval before prescribing daratumumab for high-risk SMM.

Are there alternatives to reduce the risk for SMM turning into MM? “Generally, I advise close observation in most cases, but we do have clinical trials in this space,” Banerjee said. “Technically, it is possible to consider lenalidomide monotherapy in SMM based on the results of a large phase 3 study. But lenalidomide is expensive and has many side effects. Insurance companies often won’t cover it fully, and patients almost always have at least one side effect.”

Also, he added, “only half of patients saw their high-risk SMM disease burden drop. Lenalidomide also has a clear link to rare, delayed toxicities such as second primary malignancies, which makes us nervous.”

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the maker of daratumumab, funded the study. Dimopoulos disclosed ties with Sanofi, Regeneron, Menarini, Takeda, GSK, BMS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, BeiGene, Swixx, AstraZeneca, and Amgen. Banerjee disclosed ties with AbbVie, Adaptive, BMS, Caribou, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack, Pfizer, Prothena, Sanofi Pasteur, and SparkCures. Some other authors reported various and multiple disclosures, including ties with Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

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

Treated with a dexamethasone-sparing regimen, frail older adult patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) show significant reductions in disease progression and improvements in quality of life, new research shows.

The study “is the first randomized phase 3 study dedicated to frail patients,” said first author Salomon Manier, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. He presented the findings this week at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting in San Diego.

“It shows that daratumumab-lenalidomide [with limited dexamethasone] led to a significant reduced risk of progression or death by 49% in frail patients, with a favorable safety profile and an improved health-related quality of life,” Manier said.

Older adult patients who are newly diagnosed with MM have varying levels of fitness or frailty and have been shown to have shorter survival, with higher rates of nonhematologic adverse events and treatment discontinuation.

While the regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone has become a standard of care, with efficacy and tolerance, including for patients with frailty, the infection and pneumonia rates with the approach can be high, particularly for patients with frailty.

To evaluate if an alternative, dexamethasone-sparing approach could improve outcomes while limiting toxicity for older adults, Manier and his colleagues conducted the prospective, open-label phase 3 IFM2017-03 trial, involving 295 patients (age, 65 years) with newly diagnosed MM at 90 centers in France.

The patients had a median age of 81, with 84% older than 75 years and 61% older than 80 years. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group proxy frailty score ≥ 2.

The patients were randomized 1:2 to treatment either with the Rd regimen of 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28) and dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly) or with the dexamethasone-sparing regimen (DR) of daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneous once weekly for 8 weeks, once every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, and once every 4 weeks thereafter), lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28), and two cycles of dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly for 8 weeks then stopping).

The randomization included stratification based on age and cancer stage. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in the two groups.

Both regimens were administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

As of the data cut-off in November 2024, with a median follow-up of 46.3 months, 81 of the original 200 patients in the DR arm remained on treatment, and 11 of 95 continued in the Rd arm.

The overall median treatment duration among the 200 original patients in the DR arm was 31.6 months and 14.3 months in the Rd arm.

The study met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), with a median rate of 53.4 months in the DR arm vs 22.5 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001).

The improved PFS in the DR arm was observed across all subgroups based on age, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer stage, cytogenetics, and creatinine clearance; however, those with lower frailty scores had better outcomes in both groups.

A median overall survival was not reached in the DR arm vs 47.2 months in the Rd arm (HR, 0.52; P = .0001).

The DR arm also showed a higher overall best response rate of 94% vs 86% (P = .005), respectively, with deeper responses in the DR arm at all time points, including the earliest points at 4 months.

In terms of adverse events (AEs), at least one AE of grade ≥ 3 occurred in 89% in the DR arm and 79% in the Rd arm.

Those in the DR arm had significantly more grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs with neutropenia (62% vs 34%); however, grade ≥ 3 infections were similar, with 19% in the DR arm and 21% in the Rd arm. Infections involving pneumonia occurred in 6% and 8%, respectively.

There were no significant differences between the two arms in discontinuations due to AEs (30% in the DR arm and 34% in the Rd arm).

While health-related quality of life measures at baseline were well balanced between the two groups, those in the DR arm reported significantly shorter times to clinically meaningful improvement in all domains of the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30).

“The safety profile was significantly improved and was favorable, without increased infection or pneumonia rates, with similar rates of treatment discontinuation,” Manier said.

Based on the findings, “we believe that the dexamethasone-sparing strategy is effective and safe for treating these frail patients with multiple myeloma,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that, with the popularity of triplet regimens such as daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the Rd regimen in the study is not as commonly used.

“But what this trial tells us is that efficacy outcomes in such a group of patients are encouraging despite getting rid of dexamethasone so quickly,” he said in an interview.

However, “while the tide is changing, dexamethasone is still given long-term, week after week after week in most myeloma protocols and in the community,” he noted. “Hopefully, this trial, and some of the other work, will lead to a change in this space.” 

Mohyuddin suggests one approach can involve starting off with just daratumumab and a low dose of dexamethasone, then adding lenalidomide at a lower dose later in a sequential/graded approach.

“Other approaches that should be studied should be bispecific antibodies used sparingly, with less frequent dosing, or finite period,” he added. “There is lot to refine.”

Mohyuddin added a critique that the study’s endpoint of PFS may not have been ideal for the population of elderly and frail patients.

“Older people generally prioritize functional independence and quality of life, and perhaps a more patient-centered endpoint could have led to an even more informative study,” he said.

Manier’s disclosures included consultancy with Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Novartis, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Roche, Regeneron, and AbbVie. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Treated with a dexamethasone-sparing regimen, frail older adult patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) show significant reductions in disease progression and improvements in quality of life, new research shows.

The study “is the first randomized phase 3 study dedicated to frail patients,” said first author Salomon Manier, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. He presented the findings this week at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting in San Diego.

“It shows that daratumumab-lenalidomide [with limited dexamethasone] led to a significant reduced risk of progression or death by 49% in frail patients, with a favorable safety profile and an improved health-related quality of life,” Manier said.

Older adult patients who are newly diagnosed with MM have varying levels of fitness or frailty and have been shown to have shorter survival, with higher rates of nonhematologic adverse events and treatment discontinuation.

While the regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone has become a standard of care, with efficacy and tolerance, including for patients with frailty, the infection and pneumonia rates with the approach can be high, particularly for patients with frailty.

To evaluate if an alternative, dexamethasone-sparing approach could improve outcomes while limiting toxicity for older adults, Manier and his colleagues conducted the prospective, open-label phase 3 IFM2017-03 trial, involving 295 patients (age, 65 years) with newly diagnosed MM at 90 centers in France.

The patients had a median age of 81, with 84% older than 75 years and 61% older than 80 years. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group proxy frailty score ≥ 2.

The patients were randomized 1:2 to treatment either with the Rd regimen of 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28) and dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly) or with the dexamethasone-sparing regimen (DR) of daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneous once weekly for 8 weeks, once every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, and once every 4 weeks thereafter), lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28), and two cycles of dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly for 8 weeks then stopping).

The randomization included stratification based on age and cancer stage. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in the two groups.

Both regimens were administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

As of the data cut-off in November 2024, with a median follow-up of 46.3 months, 81 of the original 200 patients in the DR arm remained on treatment, and 11 of 95 continued in the Rd arm.

The overall median treatment duration among the 200 original patients in the DR arm was 31.6 months and 14.3 months in the Rd arm.

The study met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), with a median rate of 53.4 months in the DR arm vs 22.5 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001).

The improved PFS in the DR arm was observed across all subgroups based on age, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer stage, cytogenetics, and creatinine clearance; however, those with lower frailty scores had better outcomes in both groups.

A median overall survival was not reached in the DR arm vs 47.2 months in the Rd arm (HR, 0.52; P = .0001).

The DR arm also showed a higher overall best response rate of 94% vs 86% (P = .005), respectively, with deeper responses in the DR arm at all time points, including the earliest points at 4 months.

In terms of adverse events (AEs), at least one AE of grade ≥ 3 occurred in 89% in the DR arm and 79% in the Rd arm.

Those in the DR arm had significantly more grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs with neutropenia (62% vs 34%); however, grade ≥ 3 infections were similar, with 19% in the DR arm and 21% in the Rd arm. Infections involving pneumonia occurred in 6% and 8%, respectively.

There were no significant differences between the two arms in discontinuations due to AEs (30% in the DR arm and 34% in the Rd arm).

While health-related quality of life measures at baseline were well balanced between the two groups, those in the DR arm reported significantly shorter times to clinically meaningful improvement in all domains of the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30).

“The safety profile was significantly improved and was favorable, without increased infection or pneumonia rates, with similar rates of treatment discontinuation,” Manier said.

Based on the findings, “we believe that the dexamethasone-sparing strategy is effective and safe for treating these frail patients with multiple myeloma,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that, with the popularity of triplet regimens such as daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the Rd regimen in the study is not as commonly used.

“But what this trial tells us is that efficacy outcomes in such a group of patients are encouraging despite getting rid of dexamethasone so quickly,” he said in an interview.

However, “while the tide is changing, dexamethasone is still given long-term, week after week after week in most myeloma protocols and in the community,” he noted. “Hopefully, this trial, and some of the other work, will lead to a change in this space.” 

Mohyuddin suggests one approach can involve starting off with just daratumumab and a low dose of dexamethasone, then adding lenalidomide at a lower dose later in a sequential/graded approach.

“Other approaches that should be studied should be bispecific antibodies used sparingly, with less frequent dosing, or finite period,” he added. “There is lot to refine.”

Mohyuddin added a critique that the study’s endpoint of PFS may not have been ideal for the population of elderly and frail patients.

“Older people generally prioritize functional independence and quality of life, and perhaps a more patient-centered endpoint could have led to an even more informative study,” he said.

Manier’s disclosures included consultancy with Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Novartis, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Roche, Regeneron, and AbbVie. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Treated with a dexamethasone-sparing regimen, frail older adult patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) show significant reductions in disease progression and improvements in quality of life, new research shows.

The study “is the first randomized phase 3 study dedicated to frail patients,” said first author Salomon Manier, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at Lille University Hospital, Lille, France. He presented the findings this week at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting in San Diego.

“It shows that daratumumab-lenalidomide [with limited dexamethasone] led to a significant reduced risk of progression or death by 49% in frail patients, with a favorable safety profile and an improved health-related quality of life,” Manier said.

Older adult patients who are newly diagnosed with MM have varying levels of fitness or frailty and have been shown to have shorter survival, with higher rates of nonhematologic adverse events and treatment discontinuation.

While the regimen of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone has become a standard of care, with efficacy and tolerance, including for patients with frailty, the infection and pneumonia rates with the approach can be high, particularly for patients with frailty.

To evaluate if an alternative, dexamethasone-sparing approach could improve outcomes while limiting toxicity for older adults, Manier and his colleagues conducted the prospective, open-label phase 3 IFM2017-03 trial, involving 295 patients (age, 65 years) with newly diagnosed MM at 90 centers in France.

The patients had a median age of 81, with 84% older than 75 years and 61% older than 80 years. All had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group proxy frailty score ≥ 2.

The patients were randomized 1:2 to treatment either with the Rd regimen of 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28) and dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly) or with the dexamethasone-sparing regimen (DR) of daratumumab (1800 mg subcutaneous once weekly for 8 weeks, once every 2 weeks for 16 weeks, and once every 4 weeks thereafter), lenalidomide (25 mg/d, 21/28), and two cycles of dexamethasone (20 mg once weekly for 8 weeks then stopping).

The randomization included stratification based on age and cancer stage. Baseline characteristics were well balanced in the two groups.

Both regimens were administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

As of the data cut-off in November 2024, with a median follow-up of 46.3 months, 81 of the original 200 patients in the DR arm remained on treatment, and 11 of 95 continued in the Rd arm.

The overall median treatment duration among the 200 original patients in the DR arm was 31.6 months and 14.3 months in the Rd arm.

The study met its primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), with a median rate of 53.4 months in the DR arm vs 22.5 months in the Rd arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; P < .0001).

The improved PFS in the DR arm was observed across all subgroups based on age, Charlson comorbidity index, cancer stage, cytogenetics, and creatinine clearance; however, those with lower frailty scores had better outcomes in both groups.

A median overall survival was not reached in the DR arm vs 47.2 months in the Rd arm (HR, 0.52; P = .0001).

The DR arm also showed a higher overall best response rate of 94% vs 86% (P = .005), respectively, with deeper responses in the DR arm at all time points, including the earliest points at 4 months.

In terms of adverse events (AEs), at least one AE of grade ≥ 3 occurred in 89% in the DR arm and 79% in the Rd arm.

Those in the DR arm had significantly more grade 3 or higher hematologic AEs with neutropenia (62% vs 34%); however, grade ≥ 3 infections were similar, with 19% in the DR arm and 21% in the Rd arm. Infections involving pneumonia occurred in 6% and 8%, respectively.

There were no significant differences between the two arms in discontinuations due to AEs (30% in the DR arm and 34% in the Rd arm).

While health-related quality of life measures at baseline were well balanced between the two groups, those in the DR arm reported significantly shorter times to clinically meaningful improvement in all domains of the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30).

“The safety profile was significantly improved and was favorable, without increased infection or pneumonia rates, with similar rates of treatment discontinuation,” Manier said.

Based on the findings, “we believe that the dexamethasone-sparing strategy is effective and safe for treating these frail patients with multiple myeloma,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Manni Mohyuddin, MD, an assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, noted that, with the popularity of triplet regimens such as daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, the Rd regimen in the study is not as commonly used.

“But what this trial tells us is that efficacy outcomes in such a group of patients are encouraging despite getting rid of dexamethasone so quickly,” he said in an interview.

However, “while the tide is changing, dexamethasone is still given long-term, week after week after week in most myeloma protocols and in the community,” he noted. “Hopefully, this trial, and some of the other work, will lead to a change in this space.” 

Mohyuddin suggests one approach can involve starting off with just daratumumab and a low dose of dexamethasone, then adding lenalidomide at a lower dose later in a sequential/graded approach.

“Other approaches that should be studied should be bispecific antibodies used sparingly, with less frequent dosing, or finite period,” he added. “There is lot to refine.”

Mohyuddin added a critique that the study’s endpoint of PFS may not have been ideal for the population of elderly and frail patients.

“Older people generally prioritize functional independence and quality of life, and perhaps a more patient-centered endpoint could have led to an even more informative study,” he said.

Manier’s disclosures included consultancy with Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Novartis, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Celgene/BMS, Amgen, Adaptive Biotechnologies, Roche, Regeneron, and AbbVie. Mohyuddin had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Instead of sitting behind a laptop during patient visits, the pediatrician directly faces the patient and parent, relying on an ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribe to capture the conversation for the electronic health record (EHR). A geriatrician doing rounds at the senior living facility plugs each patient’s medications into an AI tool, checking for drug interactions. And a busy hospital radiology department runs all its emergency head CTs through an AI algorithm, triaging potential stroke patients to ensure they receive the highest priority. None of these physicians have been sued for malpractice for AI usage, but they wonder if they’re at risk.

In a recent Medscape report, AI Adoption in Healthcare, 224 physicians responded to the statement: “I want to do more with AI but I worry about malpractice risk if I move too fast.” Seventeen percent said that they strongly agreed while 23% said they agreed — a full 40% were concerned about using the technology for legal reasons.  

Malpractice and AI are on many minds in healthcare, especially in large health systems, Deepika Srivastava, chief operating officer at The Doctors Company, told this news organization. “AI is at the forefront of the conversation, and they’re [large health systems] raising questions. Larger systems want to protect themselves.” 

The good news is there’s currently no sign of legal action over the clinical use of AI. “We’re not seeing even a few AI-related suits just yet,” but the risk is growing, Srivastava said, “and that’s why we’re talking about it. The legal system will need to adapt to address the role of AI in healthcare.”

 

How Doctors Are Using AI

Healthcare is incorporating AI in multiple ways based on the type of tool and function needed. Narrow AI is popular in fields like radiology, comparing two large data sets to find differences between them. Narrow AI can help differentiate between normal and abnormal tissue, such as breast or lung tumors. Almost 900 AI health tools have Food and Drug Administration approval as of July 2024, discerning abnormalities and recognizing patterns better than many humans, said Robert Pearl, MD, author of ChatGPT, MD: How AI-Empowered Patients & Doctors Can Take Back Control of American Medicine and former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.

Narrow AI can improve diagnostic speed and accuracy for other specialties, too, including dermatology and ophthalmology, Pearl said. “It’s less clear to me if it will be very beneficial in primary care, neurology, and psychiatry, areas of medicine that involve a lot of words.” In those specialties, some may use generative AI as a repository of resources. In clinical practice, ambient AI is also used to create health records based on patient/clinician conversations.

In clinical administration, AI is used for scheduling, billing, and submitting insurance claims. On the insurer side, denying claims based on AI algorithms has been at the heart of legal actions, making recent headlines. 

 

Malpractice Risks When Using AI

Accuracy and privacy should be at the top of the list for malpractice concerns with AI. With accuracy, liability could partially be determined by use type. If a diagnostic application makes the wrong diagnosis, “the company has legal accountability because it created and had to test it specific to the application that it’s being recommended for,” Pearl said. 

However, keeping a human in the loop is a smart move when using AI diagnostic tools. The physician should still choose the AI-suggested diagnosis or a different one. If it’s the wrong diagnosis, “it’s really hard to currently say where is the source of the error? Was it the physician? Was it the tool?” Srivastava added.

With an incorrect diagnosis by generative AI, liability is more apparent. “You’re taking that accountability,” Pearl said. Generative AI operates in a black box, predicting the correct answer based on information stored in a database. “Generative AI tries to draw a correlation between what it has seen and predicting the next output,” said Alex Shahrestani, managing partner of Promise Legal PLLC, a law firm in Austin, Texas. He serves on the State Bar of Texas’s Taskforce on AI and the Law and has participated in advisory groups related to AI policies with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. “A doctor should know to validate information given back to them by AI,” applying their own medical training and judgment.

Generative AI can provide ideas. Pearl shared a story about a surgeon who was unable to remove a breathing tube that was stuck in a patients’ throat at the end of a procedure. The surgeon checked ChatGPT in the operating room, finding a similar case. Adrenaline in the anesthetic restricted the blood vessels, causing the vocal cords to stick together. Following the AI information, the surgeon allowed more time for the anesthesia to diffuse. As it wore off, the vocal cords separated, easing the removal of the breathing tube. “That is the kind of expertise it can provide,” Pearl said.

Privacy is a common AI concern, but it may be more problematic than it should be. “Many think if you talk to an AI system, you’re surrendering personal information the model can learn from,” said Shahrestani. Platforms offer opt-outs. Even without opting out, the model won’t automatically ingest your interactions. That’s not a privacy feature, but a concern by the developer that the information may not help the model. 

“If you do use these opt-out mechanisms, and you have the requisite amount of confidentiality, you can use ChatGPT without too much concern about the patient information being released into the wild,” Shahrestani said. Or use systems with stricter requirements that keep all data on site.

 

Malpractice Insurance Policies and AI

Currently, malpractice policies do not specify AI coverage. “We don’t ask right now to list all the technology you’re using,” said Srivastava. Many EHR systems already incorporate AI. If a human provider is in the loop, already vetted and insured, “we should be okay when it comes to the risk of malpractice when doctors are using AI because it’s still the risk that we’re ensuring.”

Insurers are paying attention, though. “Traditional medical malpractice law does require re-evaluation because the rapid pace of AI development has outpaced the efforts to integrate it into the legal system,” Srivastava said.

Some, including Pearl, believe AI will actually lower the malpractice risk. Having more data points to consider can make doctors’ jobs faster, easier, and more accurate. “I believe the technology will decrease lawsuits, not increase them,” said Pearl.

 

Meanwhile, How Can Doctors Protect Themselves From an AI Malpractice Suit?

Know your tool: Providers should understand the tool they’re deploying, what it provides, how it was built and trained (including potential biases), how it was tested, and the guidelines for how to use it or not use it, said Srivastava. Evaluate each tool, use case, and risk separately. “Don’t just say it’s all AI.” 

With generative AI, users will have better success requesting information that has been available longer and is more widely accessed. “It’s more likely to come back correctly,” said Shahrestani. If the information sought is fairly new or not widespread, the tool may try to draw problematic conclusions. 

Document: “Document, document, document. Just making sure you have good documentation can really help you if litigation comes up and it’s related to the AI tools,” Srivastava said.

Try it out: “I recommend you use [generative AI] a lot so you understand its strengths and shortcomings,” said Shahrestani. “If you wait until things settle, you’ll be further behind.” 

Pretend you’re the patient and give the tool the information you’d give a doctor and see the results, said Pearl. It will provide you with an idea of what it can do. “No one would sue you because you went to the library to look up information in the textbooks,” he said — using generative AI is similar. Try the free versions first; if you begin relying on it more, the paid versions have better features and are inexpensive. 

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

Treatment with the oral Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax was associated with improved progression-free survival, compared with standard-of-care chemoimmunotherapy in frontline treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to a prespecified interim analysis of the AMPLIFY trial.

In fit, adult patients without del(17p) or TP53 mutations, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination, with or without obinutuzumab, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab, reported principal investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD,who presented the results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Patients with CLL have several frontline treatment options, which include chemoimmunotherapy for low-risk disease as well as venetoclax plus the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.

While fixed-duration venetoclax plus ibrutinib can result in deep, durable responses, cardiac toxicity remains a concern, particularly in older patients, explained Brown, director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, during a press conference.

Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor with improved safety and tolerability, compared with ibrutinib. Brown and colleagues wanted to see whether this second-generation BTK inhibitor alongside venetoclax provided a clinical benefit and fewer cardiac toxicities as a frontline option in this patient population.

“AMPLIFY provides the first phase 3 evidence of fixed-duration therapy with a combination of venetoclax and a second-generation BTK inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive CLL,” Brown said. And these results “show the promise of a new all-oral fixed-duration therapy approach, which would allow patients to take breaks from treatment, reducing the risk of long-term adverse events and drug resistance,” Brown, also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, added in a press release.

 

Study Details

AMPLIFY randomized 867 patients (median age, 61 years) to three treatment arms: Acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax alone (n = 291), acalabrutinib and venetoclax with obinutuzumab (n = 286), or the investigator’s choice of chemoimmunotherapy — a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab (n = 290). The median follow-up was 41 months.

Compared with 66.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm, 83.1% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 76.5% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm reached the primary endpoint of 36-month progression-free survival (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.65 and 0.42, respectively). Median progression-free survival was not reached in the two acalabrutinib arms, compared with 47.6 months in the chemotherapy arm.

More than half of all participants (58.6%) had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IGHV) status. In a subgroup analysis, patients on either acalabrutinib regimen experienced a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy, regardless of IGHV status.

It was “particularly noticeable” in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm (HR, 0.35) that patients with unmutated IGHV were doing as well as those with mutated IGHV, “suggesting that the addition of obinutuzumab may overcome the adverse impact of unmutated IGHV,” Brown said.

Patients also demonstrated a robust response in both investigational arms with an overall response rate of 92.8% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax and 92.7% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, compared with 75.2% for chemoimmunotherapy (P < .0001 for both).

In addition, compared with chemoimmunotherapy, acalabrutinib-venetoclax was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56). Acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.78), but the findings were not statistically significant.

When considering COVID-19 deaths, overall survival findings were significant for both acalabrutinib regimens, Brown reported.

COVID-19 deaths were observed in 10 patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, 25 in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, and 21 in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

In terms of safety, both acalabrutinib treatment regimens demonstrated “tolerable safety profiles with a low incidence of cardiac adverse events typically associated with BTK inhibitors, including atrial fibrillation or hypertension,” she reported.

Any serious adverse events were observed in 24.7% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax patients, 38.4% of those receiving acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 27.4% on chemoimmunotherapy. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred in 3.4%, 6.0%, and 3.5% of patients in the three groups, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in about 8%, 20%, and 10.8%, respectively, of patients.

The most common adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 32.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 46.1% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, compared with 43.2% of patients with chemoimmunotherapy.

As for cardiac events, 9.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax group experienced an event of any grade compared with 12% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 3.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy group.

 

To Add or Not to Add Obinutuzumab

Asked how clinicians might decide between the two acalabrutinib regimens, Brown said, “if you add the obinutuzumab, it does add more work for the patient,” and it adds more toxicity.

But, she noted, it might optimize progression-free survival.

“I think when physicians are considering whether to use the two- or the three-drug regimen, they have to take account of the patient in front of them,” Brown said. “The acalabrutinib-venetoclax regimen is a very well-tolerated oral regimen, which is really going to be suitable for anyone, and I think, easy to use in the community.”

The fact that there were more COVID-19 deaths in the obinutuzumab arm, compared with the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, suggests more immunosuppression in the three-drug regimen, said session moderator Deborah M. Stephens, DO, associate professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Richter’s Program at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.

This finding could “call into question whether acalabrutinib-venetoclax may have a better risk/benefit ratio when compared to acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab,” she wrote in an email.

Overall, “AMPLIFY is an important trial, and these data will likely be submitted to the US FDA and regulatory bodies of other involved countries to gain approval of the acalabrutinib + venetoclax +/− obinutuzumab regimen,” Stephens added.

“Notably, this is another in a string of phase 3 trials showing that survival is prolonged with targeted agents compared to chemoimmunotherapy,” indicating that standard chemoimmunotherapy “should be considered obsolete as a control arm for phase 3 studies in the frontline treatment of CLL,” said Stephens.

Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, another CLL specialist from City of Hope, Duarte, California, who was also presenting at the press conference, said, “I don’t see a full justification to use the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab regimen across the board in all patients, even though progression-free is better. I do think that, unfortunately, this benefit is offset by increased frequency of adverse events.”

Although it looks like “the majority of patients will be very good candidates for acalabrutinib-venetoclax, with impressive progression-free survival, I think we will still have to define who these patients are,” he added.

However, overall, he was enthusiastic. “This is anticipated to get approval as the first oral doublet front line therapy of CLL, and I think many patients do — in my clinic at least — prefer the idea of finite duration therapy to continuous BTK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Brown disclosed consulting with Acerta/AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, AbbVie, and multiple other companies. Danilov disclosed consulting with AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, among others. Stephens had no relevant disclosures.

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

Treatment with the oral Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax was associated with improved progression-free survival, compared with standard-of-care chemoimmunotherapy in frontline treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to a prespecified interim analysis of the AMPLIFY trial.

In fit, adult patients without del(17p) or TP53 mutations, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination, with or without obinutuzumab, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab, reported principal investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD,who presented the results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Patients with CLL have several frontline treatment options, which include chemoimmunotherapy for low-risk disease as well as venetoclax plus the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.

While fixed-duration venetoclax plus ibrutinib can result in deep, durable responses, cardiac toxicity remains a concern, particularly in older patients, explained Brown, director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, during a press conference.

Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor with improved safety and tolerability, compared with ibrutinib. Brown and colleagues wanted to see whether this second-generation BTK inhibitor alongside venetoclax provided a clinical benefit and fewer cardiac toxicities as a frontline option in this patient population.

“AMPLIFY provides the first phase 3 evidence of fixed-duration therapy with a combination of venetoclax and a second-generation BTK inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive CLL,” Brown said. And these results “show the promise of a new all-oral fixed-duration therapy approach, which would allow patients to take breaks from treatment, reducing the risk of long-term adverse events and drug resistance,” Brown, also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, added in a press release.

 

Study Details

AMPLIFY randomized 867 patients (median age, 61 years) to three treatment arms: Acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax alone (n = 291), acalabrutinib and venetoclax with obinutuzumab (n = 286), or the investigator’s choice of chemoimmunotherapy — a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab (n = 290). The median follow-up was 41 months.

Compared with 66.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm, 83.1% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 76.5% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm reached the primary endpoint of 36-month progression-free survival (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.65 and 0.42, respectively). Median progression-free survival was not reached in the two acalabrutinib arms, compared with 47.6 months in the chemotherapy arm.

More than half of all participants (58.6%) had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IGHV) status. In a subgroup analysis, patients on either acalabrutinib regimen experienced a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy, regardless of IGHV status.

It was “particularly noticeable” in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm (HR, 0.35) that patients with unmutated IGHV were doing as well as those with mutated IGHV, “suggesting that the addition of obinutuzumab may overcome the adverse impact of unmutated IGHV,” Brown said.

Patients also demonstrated a robust response in both investigational arms with an overall response rate of 92.8% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax and 92.7% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, compared with 75.2% for chemoimmunotherapy (P < .0001 for both).

In addition, compared with chemoimmunotherapy, acalabrutinib-venetoclax was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56). Acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.78), but the findings were not statistically significant.

When considering COVID-19 deaths, overall survival findings were significant for both acalabrutinib regimens, Brown reported.

COVID-19 deaths were observed in 10 patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, 25 in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, and 21 in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

In terms of safety, both acalabrutinib treatment regimens demonstrated “tolerable safety profiles with a low incidence of cardiac adverse events typically associated with BTK inhibitors, including atrial fibrillation or hypertension,” she reported.

Any serious adverse events were observed in 24.7% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax patients, 38.4% of those receiving acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 27.4% on chemoimmunotherapy. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred in 3.4%, 6.0%, and 3.5% of patients in the three groups, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in about 8%, 20%, and 10.8%, respectively, of patients.

The most common adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 32.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 46.1% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, compared with 43.2% of patients with chemoimmunotherapy.

As for cardiac events, 9.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax group experienced an event of any grade compared with 12% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 3.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy group.

 

To Add or Not to Add Obinutuzumab

Asked how clinicians might decide between the two acalabrutinib regimens, Brown said, “if you add the obinutuzumab, it does add more work for the patient,” and it adds more toxicity.

But, she noted, it might optimize progression-free survival.

“I think when physicians are considering whether to use the two- or the three-drug regimen, they have to take account of the patient in front of them,” Brown said. “The acalabrutinib-venetoclax regimen is a very well-tolerated oral regimen, which is really going to be suitable for anyone, and I think, easy to use in the community.”

The fact that there were more COVID-19 deaths in the obinutuzumab arm, compared with the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, suggests more immunosuppression in the three-drug regimen, said session moderator Deborah M. Stephens, DO, associate professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Richter’s Program at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.

This finding could “call into question whether acalabrutinib-venetoclax may have a better risk/benefit ratio when compared to acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab,” she wrote in an email.

Overall, “AMPLIFY is an important trial, and these data will likely be submitted to the US FDA and regulatory bodies of other involved countries to gain approval of the acalabrutinib + venetoclax +/− obinutuzumab regimen,” Stephens added.

“Notably, this is another in a string of phase 3 trials showing that survival is prolonged with targeted agents compared to chemoimmunotherapy,” indicating that standard chemoimmunotherapy “should be considered obsolete as a control arm for phase 3 studies in the frontline treatment of CLL,” said Stephens.

Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, another CLL specialist from City of Hope, Duarte, California, who was also presenting at the press conference, said, “I don’t see a full justification to use the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab regimen across the board in all patients, even though progression-free is better. I do think that, unfortunately, this benefit is offset by increased frequency of adverse events.”

Although it looks like “the majority of patients will be very good candidates for acalabrutinib-venetoclax, with impressive progression-free survival, I think we will still have to define who these patients are,” he added.

However, overall, he was enthusiastic. “This is anticipated to get approval as the first oral doublet front line therapy of CLL, and I think many patients do — in my clinic at least — prefer the idea of finite duration therapy to continuous BTK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Brown disclosed consulting with Acerta/AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, AbbVie, and multiple other companies. Danilov disclosed consulting with AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, among others. Stephens had no relevant disclosures.

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

Treatment with the oral Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax was associated with improved progression-free survival, compared with standard-of-care chemoimmunotherapy in frontline treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), according to a prespecified interim analysis of the AMPLIFY trial.

In fit, adult patients without del(17p) or TP53 mutations, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination, with or without obinutuzumab, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival compared with a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab, reported principal investigator Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD,who presented the results at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

Patients with CLL have several frontline treatment options, which include chemoimmunotherapy for low-risk disease as well as venetoclax plus the first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib.

While fixed-duration venetoclax plus ibrutinib can result in deep, durable responses, cardiac toxicity remains a concern, particularly in older patients, explained Brown, director of the CLL Center of the Division of Hematologic Malignancies, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, during a press conference.

Acalabrutinib is a highly selective second-generation BTK inhibitor with improved safety and tolerability, compared with ibrutinib. Brown and colleagues wanted to see whether this second-generation BTK inhibitor alongside venetoclax provided a clinical benefit and fewer cardiac toxicities as a frontline option in this patient population.

“AMPLIFY provides the first phase 3 evidence of fixed-duration therapy with a combination of venetoclax and a second-generation BTK inhibitor in patients with treatment-naive CLL,” Brown said. And these results “show the promise of a new all-oral fixed-duration therapy approach, which would allow patients to take breaks from treatment, reducing the risk of long-term adverse events and drug resistance,” Brown, also from Harvard Medical School, Boston, added in a press release.

 

Study Details

AMPLIFY randomized 867 patients (median age, 61 years) to three treatment arms: Acalabrutinib in combination with venetoclax alone (n = 291), acalabrutinib and venetoclax with obinutuzumab (n = 286), or the investigator’s choice of chemoimmunotherapy — a combination of fludarabine-cyclophosphamide-rituximab or bendamustine-rituximab (n = 290). The median follow-up was 41 months.

Compared with 66.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy arm, 83.1% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 76.5% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm reached the primary endpoint of 36-month progression-free survival (hazard ratios [HRs] of 0.65 and 0.42, respectively). Median progression-free survival was not reached in the two acalabrutinib arms, compared with 47.6 months in the chemotherapy arm.

More than half of all participants (58.6%) had unmutated immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IGHV) status. In a subgroup analysis, patients on either acalabrutinib regimen experienced a significant improvement in progression-free survival compared with those on chemoimmunotherapy, regardless of IGHV status.

It was “particularly noticeable” in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm (HR, 0.35) that patients with unmutated IGHV were doing as well as those with mutated IGHV, “suggesting that the addition of obinutuzumab may overcome the adverse impact of unmutated IGHV,” Brown said.

Patients also demonstrated a robust response in both investigational arms with an overall response rate of 92.8% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax and 92.7% for acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, compared with 75.2% for chemoimmunotherapy (P < .0001 for both).

In addition, compared with chemoimmunotherapy, acalabrutinib-venetoclax was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56). Acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab was associated with better overall survival (HR, 0.78), but the findings were not statistically significant.

When considering COVID-19 deaths, overall survival findings were significant for both acalabrutinib regimens, Brown reported.

COVID-19 deaths were observed in 10 patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, 25 in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab arm, and 21 in the chemoimmunotherapy arm.

In terms of safety, both acalabrutinib treatment regimens demonstrated “tolerable safety profiles with a low incidence of cardiac adverse events typically associated with BTK inhibitors, including atrial fibrillation or hypertension,” she reported.

Any serious adverse events were observed in 24.7% of the acalabrutinib-venetoclax patients, 38.4% of those receiving acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab, and 27.4% on chemoimmunotherapy. Serious adverse events leading to death occurred in 3.4%, 6.0%, and 3.5% of patients in the three groups, respectively, and adverse events leading to death occurred in about 8%, 20%, and 10.8%, respectively, of patients.

The most common adverse event was neutropenia, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurring in 32.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm and 46.1% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group, compared with 43.2% of patients with chemoimmunotherapy.

As for cardiac events, 9.3% of patients in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax group experienced an event of any grade compared with 12% in the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab group and 3.5% in the chemoimmunotherapy group.

 

To Add or Not to Add Obinutuzumab

Asked how clinicians might decide between the two acalabrutinib regimens, Brown said, “if you add the obinutuzumab, it does add more work for the patient,” and it adds more toxicity.

But, she noted, it might optimize progression-free survival.

“I think when physicians are considering whether to use the two- or the three-drug regimen, they have to take account of the patient in front of them,” Brown said. “The acalabrutinib-venetoclax regimen is a very well-tolerated oral regimen, which is really going to be suitable for anyone, and I think, easy to use in the community.”

The fact that there were more COVID-19 deaths in the obinutuzumab arm, compared with the acalabrutinib-venetoclax arm, suggests more immunosuppression in the three-drug regimen, said session moderator Deborah M. Stephens, DO, associate professor of medicine and director of the Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Richter’s Program at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill.

This finding could “call into question whether acalabrutinib-venetoclax may have a better risk/benefit ratio when compared to acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab,” she wrote in an email.

Overall, “AMPLIFY is an important trial, and these data will likely be submitted to the US FDA and regulatory bodies of other involved countries to gain approval of the acalabrutinib + venetoclax +/− obinutuzumab regimen,” Stephens added.

“Notably, this is another in a string of phase 3 trials showing that survival is prolonged with targeted agents compared to chemoimmunotherapy,” indicating that standard chemoimmunotherapy “should be considered obsolete as a control arm for phase 3 studies in the frontline treatment of CLL,” said Stephens.

Alexey Danilov, MD, PhD, another CLL specialist from City of Hope, Duarte, California, who was also presenting at the press conference, said, “I don’t see a full justification to use the acalabrutinib-venetoclax-obinutuzumab regimen across the board in all patients, even though progression-free is better. I do think that, unfortunately, this benefit is offset by increased frequency of adverse events.”

Although it looks like “the majority of patients will be very good candidates for acalabrutinib-venetoclax, with impressive progression-free survival, I think we will still have to define who these patients are,” he added.

However, overall, he was enthusiastic. “This is anticipated to get approval as the first oral doublet front line therapy of CLL, and I think many patients do — in my clinic at least — prefer the idea of finite duration therapy to continuous BTK inhibitors.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. Brown disclosed consulting with Acerta/AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, AbbVie, and multiple other companies. Danilov disclosed consulting with AstraZeneca, Genentech, AbbVie, among others. Stephens had no relevant disclosures.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants cancer drugs accelerated approval, a key aim is to provide patients faster access to therapies that can benefit them. 

The downside of a speedier approval timeline, however, is that it’s often not yet clear whether the new drugs will actually allow a patient to live longer or better. Information on overall survival and quality of life typically comes years later, after drugs undergo confirmatory trials, or sometimes not at all, if companies fail to conduct these trials. 

During this waiting period, patients may be receiving a cancer drug that provides no real clinical benefit but comes with a host of toxicities. 

In fact, the odds are about as good as a coin flip. For cancer drugs that have confirmatory trial data, more than half don’t ultimately provide an overall survival or quality of life benefit.

Inherent to the accelerated approval process is the assumption that patients are willing to accept this uncertainty in exchange for faster access.

But is that really the case? 

A recent survey published in The Lancet Oncology aimed to tease out people’s preferences for confirmed clinical benefit vs speedier access. The researchers asked about 870 adults with experience of cancer challenges — either their own cancer diagnosis or that of family or a close friend — whether they valued faster access or certainty that a drug really works. 

In the study, participants imagined they had been diagnosed with cancer and could choose between two cancer drugs under investigation in clinical trials but with uncertain effectiveness, and a current standard treatment. Participants had to make a series of choices based on five scenarios. 

The first two scenarios were based on the impact of the current standard treatment: A patient’s life expectancy on the standard treatment (6 months up to 3 years), and a patient’s physical health on the standard treatment (functional status restricted only during strenuous activities up to completely disabled).

The remaining three scenarios dealt with the two new drugs: The effect of the new drugs on a surrogate endpoint, progression-free survival (whether the drugs slowed tumor growth for an extra month or 5 additional months compared with the standard treatment), certainty that slowing tumor growth will improve survival (very low to high), and the wait time to access the drugs (immediately to as long as 2 years).

The researchers assessed the relative importance of survival benefit certainty vs wait time and how that balance shifted depending on the different scenarios. 

Overall, the researchers found that, if there was no evidence linking the surrogate endpoint (progression-free survival) to overall survival, patients were willing to wait about 8 months for weak evidence of an overall survival benefit (ie, low certainty the drug will extend survival by 1-5 months), about 16 months for moderate certainty, and almost 22 months for high certainty. 

Despite a willingness to wait for greater certainty, participants did value speed as well. Overall, respondents showed a strong preference against a 1-year delay in FDA approval time. People who were aged 55 years or more and were non-White individuals made less than $40,000 year as well as those with the lowest life expectancy on a current standard treatment were most sensitive to wait times while those with better functional status and longer life expectancies on a current treatment were less sensitive to longer wait times.

“Our results indicate that some patients (except those with the poorest prognoses) would find the additional time required to generate evidence on the survival benefit of new cancer drugs an acceptable tradeoff,” the study authors concluded.

Although people do place high value on timely access to new cancer drugs, especially if there are limited treatment options, many are willing to wait for greater certainty that a new drug provides an overall survival benefit, lead author Robin Forrest, MSc, with the Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics in England, said in an interview. 

In the study, respondents also did not place significant value on whether the drug substantially slowed cancer growth. “In other words, substantial progression-free survival benefit of a drug did not compensate for lack of certainty about a drug’s benefit on survival in respondents’ drug choices,” the authors explained.

“In an effort to move quickly, we have accepted progression-free survival [as a surrogate endpoint],” Jyoti D. Patel, MD, oncologist with Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, who wasn’t involved in the study. But a growing body of evidence indicates that progression-free survival is often a poor surrogate for overall survival. And what this study suggests is that “patients uniformly care about improvements in overall survival and the quality of that survival,” Patel said.

Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, was not surprised by the findings. 

“I always thought this was the real-world scenario, but the problem is the voices of ordinary patients are not heard,” Gyawali, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, who also wasn’t involved in the study, said in an interview. 

“What is heard is the loud noise of ‘we need access now, today, yesterday’ — ‘we don’t care if the drug doesn’t improve overall survival, we just need a drug, any drug’ — ‘we don’t care how much it costs, we need access today,’ ” Gyawali said. “Not saying this is wrong, but this is not the representation of all patients.”

However, the voices of patients who are more cautious and want evidence of benefit before accepting toxicities don’t make headlines, he added. 

What this survey means from a policy perspective, said Gyawali, is that accelerated approvals that do not mandate survival endpoint in confirmatory trials are ignoring the need of many patients who prioritize certainty of benefit over speed of access.

The study was funded by the London School of Economics and Political Science Phelan United States Centre. Forrest had no relevant disclosures. Gyawali has received consulting fees from Vivio Health. Patel has various relationships with AbbVie, Anheart, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Guardant, Tempus, Sanofi, BluePrint, Takeda, and Gilead.

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

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists led to a significant reduction in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among individuals with type 2 diabetes, compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, a recent analysis indicated.

Overall, GLP-1 agonist use was associated with a 20% reduction in VTE, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor use, in those with type 2 diabetes, and this benefit held regardless of people’s obesity status, said study investigator Cho-Han Chiang, MD, a medical resident at Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The incidence of VTE has increased by 20% over the past 10 years, and obesity is a risk factor for VTE, Chiang explained. A growing body of evidence demonstrated that GLP-1s provide a variety of cardiovascular benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, but data on VTE benefits remain more limited.

In the retrospective study, the researchers combed electronic health records from the TriNetX global database, which includes more than 250 million patients, and identified adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking a GLP-1 agonist or a DPP-4 inhibitor.

After excluding anyone with prior VTE or atrial fibrillation as well as those treated with both drugs or with oral anticoagulants, patients on GLP-1s were matched with those on DPP-4 inhibitors based on predetermined variables, including age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c, use of other antidiabetic agents, and underlying comorbidities. VTE was a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The researchers also performed a subgroup analysis that stratified patients by obesity status, defined as a BMI ≥ 30.

Within 1 year of GLP-1 or DPP-4 prescription, VTE occurred at a rate of 6.5 cases/1000 person-years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P < .001).

The 20% risk reduction in VTE held across various subgroups of BMI, including among those with obesity, Chiang reported.

Among patients with the highest BMI (≥ 40), VTE occurred at a rate of 7.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 9.6 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.74). Among patients with the next highest BMI (30-34.9), VTE occurred at a rate of 4.8 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.60). Among those with the lowest BMI (18.5-24.9), VTE occurred significantly less frequently among those in the GLP-1 group — 4.7 cases/1000 person years vs 7.4 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.61).

The lower risk for VTE associated with GLP-1s also held across the individual components of the composite VTE. Pulmonary embolism occurred at a rate of 3.1 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 3.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.78), and deep vein thrombosis occurred in 4.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 5.0 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.82).

Interestingly, the GLP-1 and DPP-4 curves started diverging within the first 30 days of the index prescription date, said Chiang.

Session moderator Ghadeer Dawwas, PhD, said in an interview that patients with type 2 diabetes are increasingly using GLP-1 agonists because of the cardiovascular benefits associated with the agents, which include lower risks for stroke and heart failure, but the antithrombotic benefits are still debated.

“The current study indicates that GLP-1 agonists may help lower the risk of VTE in patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of their baseline body weight,” said Dawwas, a pharmacoepidemiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. “However, given the current landscape of evidence and the existence of conflicting data on VTE risk, clinicians should proceed with caution and await further studies to validate these findings before making clinical decisions.”

This study was funded by the National Blood Clot Alliance and Conquer Cancer Foundation. Chiang and Dawwas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists led to a significant reduction in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among individuals with type 2 diabetes, compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, a recent analysis indicated.

Overall, GLP-1 agonist use was associated with a 20% reduction in VTE, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor use, in those with type 2 diabetes, and this benefit held regardless of people’s obesity status, said study investigator Cho-Han Chiang, MD, a medical resident at Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The incidence of VTE has increased by 20% over the past 10 years, and obesity is a risk factor for VTE, Chiang explained. A growing body of evidence demonstrated that GLP-1s provide a variety of cardiovascular benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, but data on VTE benefits remain more limited.

In the retrospective study, the researchers combed electronic health records from the TriNetX global database, which includes more than 250 million patients, and identified adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking a GLP-1 agonist or a DPP-4 inhibitor.

After excluding anyone with prior VTE or atrial fibrillation as well as those treated with both drugs or with oral anticoagulants, patients on GLP-1s were matched with those on DPP-4 inhibitors based on predetermined variables, including age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c, use of other antidiabetic agents, and underlying comorbidities. VTE was a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The researchers also performed a subgroup analysis that stratified patients by obesity status, defined as a BMI ≥ 30.

Within 1 year of GLP-1 or DPP-4 prescription, VTE occurred at a rate of 6.5 cases/1000 person-years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P < .001).

The 20% risk reduction in VTE held across various subgroups of BMI, including among those with obesity, Chiang reported.

Among patients with the highest BMI (≥ 40), VTE occurred at a rate of 7.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 9.6 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.74). Among patients with the next highest BMI (30-34.9), VTE occurred at a rate of 4.8 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.60). Among those with the lowest BMI (18.5-24.9), VTE occurred significantly less frequently among those in the GLP-1 group — 4.7 cases/1000 person years vs 7.4 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.61).

The lower risk for VTE associated with GLP-1s also held across the individual components of the composite VTE. Pulmonary embolism occurred at a rate of 3.1 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 3.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.78), and deep vein thrombosis occurred in 4.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 5.0 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.82).

Interestingly, the GLP-1 and DPP-4 curves started diverging within the first 30 days of the index prescription date, said Chiang.

Session moderator Ghadeer Dawwas, PhD, said in an interview that patients with type 2 diabetes are increasingly using GLP-1 agonists because of the cardiovascular benefits associated with the agents, which include lower risks for stroke and heart failure, but the antithrombotic benefits are still debated.

“The current study indicates that GLP-1 agonists may help lower the risk of VTE in patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of their baseline body weight,” said Dawwas, a pharmacoepidemiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. “However, given the current landscape of evidence and the existence of conflicting data on VTE risk, clinicians should proceed with caution and await further studies to validate these findings before making clinical decisions.”

This study was funded by the National Blood Clot Alliance and Conquer Cancer Foundation. Chiang and Dawwas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists led to a significant reduction in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among individuals with type 2 diabetes, compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, a recent analysis indicated.

Overall, GLP-1 agonist use was associated with a 20% reduction in VTE, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor use, in those with type 2 diabetes, and this benefit held regardless of people’s obesity status, said study investigator Cho-Han Chiang, MD, a medical resident at Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge, Massachusetts, who presented the findings at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The incidence of VTE has increased by 20% over the past 10 years, and obesity is a risk factor for VTE, Chiang explained. A growing body of evidence demonstrated that GLP-1s provide a variety of cardiovascular benefits in people with type 2 diabetes, but data on VTE benefits remain more limited.

In the retrospective study, the researchers combed electronic health records from the TriNetX global database, which includes more than 250 million patients, and identified adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking a GLP-1 agonist or a DPP-4 inhibitor.

After excluding anyone with prior VTE or atrial fibrillation as well as those treated with both drugs or with oral anticoagulants, patients on GLP-1s were matched with those on DPP-4 inhibitors based on predetermined variables, including age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c, use of other antidiabetic agents, and underlying comorbidities. VTE was a composite of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis.

The researchers also performed a subgroup analysis that stratified patients by obesity status, defined as a BMI ≥ 30.

Within 1 year of GLP-1 or DPP-4 prescription, VTE occurred at a rate of 6.5 cases/1000 person-years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P < .001).

The 20% risk reduction in VTE held across various subgroups of BMI, including among those with obesity, Chiang reported.

Among patients with the highest BMI (≥ 40), VTE occurred at a rate of 7.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 9.6 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.74). Among patients with the next highest BMI (30-34.9), VTE occurred at a rate of 4.8 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 7.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.60). Among those with the lowest BMI (18.5-24.9), VTE occurred significantly less frequently among those in the GLP-1 group — 4.7 cases/1000 person years vs 7.4 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.61).

The lower risk for VTE associated with GLP-1s also held across the individual components of the composite VTE. Pulmonary embolism occurred at a rate of 3.1 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 3.9 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.78), and deep vein thrombosis occurred in 4.2 cases/1000 person years in the GLP-1 group vs 5.0 cases/1000 person years in the DPP-4 inhibitor group (HR, 0.82).

Interestingly, the GLP-1 and DPP-4 curves started diverging within the first 30 days of the index prescription date, said Chiang.

Session moderator Ghadeer Dawwas, PhD, said in an interview that patients with type 2 diabetes are increasingly using GLP-1 agonists because of the cardiovascular benefits associated with the agents, which include lower risks for stroke and heart failure, but the antithrombotic benefits are still debated.

“The current study indicates that GLP-1 agonists may help lower the risk of VTE in patients with type 2 diabetes, irrespective of their baseline body weight,” said Dawwas, a pharmacoepidemiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. “However, given the current landscape of evidence and the existence of conflicting data on VTE risk, clinicians should proceed with caution and await further studies to validate these findings before making clinical decisions.”

This study was funded by the National Blood Clot Alliance and Conquer Cancer Foundation. Chiang and Dawwas had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Incidentally discovered vertebral fractures are common on scans in the general population, while the absolute risk for multiple myeloma (MM) in those with such fractures is “quite modest,” according to findings in a Danish cohort of more than 9000 patients.

The findings suggest that evaluation for underlying MM — as recommended in some clinical guidelines — may be unwarranted in the absence of symptoms or other clinical findings leading to suspicion of underlying MM, Rasmus Rønnemoes, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual American Society of Hematology conference.

“Some guidelines say to evaluate patients with vertebral fractures, including measuring serum M-protein and free light chains, and others say to evaluate only if there is an indication — but without specifying what an indication is,” Rønnemoes, of the Danish Red Blood Cell Center, Copenhagen University Hospital — Rigshospitalet, Denmark, said in an interview. 

To assess the association between vertebral fractures and MM, he and his colleagues studied 9065 individuals from the Danish general population, aged 33-94 years (median, 62 years) who were part of the Copenhagen General Population Study and who had attended a health examination and underwent a CT scan as part of the study. Overall, 1574 (17.4%) had one or more incidentally discovered vertebral fracture on the CT scan, and of those, 875 (9.7%) had a grade 1 fracture as the highest grade and 699 (7.7%) had grade 2-3 fractures.

During a median prospective follow-up of 5.5 years after the scan, 13 were diagnosed with myeloma.

“We did find an increased relative risk of myeloma in these patients, which we thought was quite interesting, but the absolute risk was quite modest,” Rønnemoes said.

The absolute 5-year risk for MM was 0.07% and 0.10% in women and men without vertebral fractures, respectively, and the risk for those with fractures was 0.17% and 0.24% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.

A case-cohort study based on more than 56,000 individuals from the UK Biobank cohort who had undergone a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan as part of that study validated the findings in the Danish population: At median follow-up of 4 years, 49 patients in the validation cohort were diagnosed with myeloma, and the absolute 5-year risk for myeloma was 0.06% and 0.12% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.14% and 0.26% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.

Given the apparently modest absolute risk for MM in patients with incidentally discovered fractures in the absence of strong indications or risk, treatment guidelines should consider the potential harms associated with additional work up and a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance diagnosis, Rønnemoes said. 

Such a diagnosis can lead to psychological distress in individuals who may never develop malignant disease, he noted.

“We just hope to bring more value to the guidelines by identifying who should be evaluated,” he said, adding that additional study — perhaps looking more closely at whether only the more severe fractures should prompt additional evaluation — is warranted.

Rønnemoes reported no disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — Incidentally discovered vertebral fractures are common on scans in the general population, while the absolute risk for multiple myeloma (MM) in those with such fractures is “quite modest,” according to findings in a Danish cohort of more than 9000 patients.

The findings suggest that evaluation for underlying MM — as recommended in some clinical guidelines — may be unwarranted in the absence of symptoms or other clinical findings leading to suspicion of underlying MM, Rasmus Rønnemoes, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual American Society of Hematology conference.

“Some guidelines say to evaluate patients with vertebral fractures, including measuring serum M-protein and free light chains, and others say to evaluate only if there is an indication — but without specifying what an indication is,” Rønnemoes, of the Danish Red Blood Cell Center, Copenhagen University Hospital — Rigshospitalet, Denmark, said in an interview. 

To assess the association between vertebral fractures and MM, he and his colleagues studied 9065 individuals from the Danish general population, aged 33-94 years (median, 62 years) who were part of the Copenhagen General Population Study and who had attended a health examination and underwent a CT scan as part of the study. Overall, 1574 (17.4%) had one or more incidentally discovered vertebral fracture on the CT scan, and of those, 875 (9.7%) had a grade 1 fracture as the highest grade and 699 (7.7%) had grade 2-3 fractures.

During a median prospective follow-up of 5.5 years after the scan, 13 were diagnosed with myeloma.

“We did find an increased relative risk of myeloma in these patients, which we thought was quite interesting, but the absolute risk was quite modest,” Rønnemoes said.

The absolute 5-year risk for MM was 0.07% and 0.10% in women and men without vertebral fractures, respectively, and the risk for those with fractures was 0.17% and 0.24% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.

A case-cohort study based on more than 56,000 individuals from the UK Biobank cohort who had undergone a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan as part of that study validated the findings in the Danish population: At median follow-up of 4 years, 49 patients in the validation cohort were diagnosed with myeloma, and the absolute 5-year risk for myeloma was 0.06% and 0.12% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.14% and 0.26% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.

Given the apparently modest absolute risk for MM in patients with incidentally discovered fractures in the absence of strong indications or risk, treatment guidelines should consider the potential harms associated with additional work up and a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance diagnosis, Rønnemoes said. 

Such a diagnosis can lead to psychological distress in individuals who may never develop malignant disease, he noted.

“We just hope to bring more value to the guidelines by identifying who should be evaluated,” he said, adding that additional study — perhaps looking more closely at whether only the more severe fractures should prompt additional evaluation — is warranted.

Rønnemoes reported no disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — Incidentally discovered vertebral fractures are common on scans in the general population, while the absolute risk for multiple myeloma (MM) in those with such fractures is “quite modest,” according to findings in a Danish cohort of more than 9000 patients.

The findings suggest that evaluation for underlying MM — as recommended in some clinical guidelines — may be unwarranted in the absence of symptoms or other clinical findings leading to suspicion of underlying MM, Rasmus Rønnemoes, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual American Society of Hematology conference.

“Some guidelines say to evaluate patients with vertebral fractures, including measuring serum M-protein and free light chains, and others say to evaluate only if there is an indication — but without specifying what an indication is,” Rønnemoes, of the Danish Red Blood Cell Center, Copenhagen University Hospital — Rigshospitalet, Denmark, said in an interview. 

To assess the association between vertebral fractures and MM, he and his colleagues studied 9065 individuals from the Danish general population, aged 33-94 years (median, 62 years) who were part of the Copenhagen General Population Study and who had attended a health examination and underwent a CT scan as part of the study. Overall, 1574 (17.4%) had one or more incidentally discovered vertebral fracture on the CT scan, and of those, 875 (9.7%) had a grade 1 fracture as the highest grade and 699 (7.7%) had grade 2-3 fractures.

During a median prospective follow-up of 5.5 years after the scan, 13 were diagnosed with myeloma.

“We did find an increased relative risk of myeloma in these patients, which we thought was quite interesting, but the absolute risk was quite modest,” Rønnemoes said.

The absolute 5-year risk for MM was 0.07% and 0.10% in women and men without vertebral fractures, respectively, and the risk for those with fractures was 0.17% and 0.24% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.

A case-cohort study based on more than 56,000 individuals from the UK Biobank cohort who had undergone a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan as part of that study validated the findings in the Danish population: At median follow-up of 4 years, 49 patients in the validation cohort were diagnosed with myeloma, and the absolute 5-year risk for myeloma was 0.06% and 0.12% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.14% and 0.26% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.

Given the apparently modest absolute risk for MM in patients with incidentally discovered fractures in the absence of strong indications or risk, treatment guidelines should consider the potential harms associated with additional work up and a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance diagnosis, Rønnemoes said. 

Such a diagnosis can lead to psychological distress in individuals who may never develop malignant disease, he noted.

“We just hope to bring more value to the guidelines by identifying who should be evaluated,” he said, adding that additional study — perhaps looking more closely at whether only the more severe fractures should prompt additional evaluation — is warranted.

Rønnemoes reported no disclosures.

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

More than a third of all patients with cancer die in hospitals, a figure that has increased slightly in recent years, while deaths at home have decreased. These findings come from a recent study published in Cancer Epidemiology, which analyzed data on the different places in Italy where end of life occurs.

“Place of death is relevant both for individuals and for the society. Home is universally considered the optimal place of death, while dying in a hospital may be a signal of inappropriate end-of-life care,” wrote the authors, led by Gianmauro Numico, MD, head of the Oncology Department at the Santa Croce e Carle General Hospital in Cuneo, Italy.

“Despite the general trend toward strengthening community-based networks and the increasing number of hospice and long-term care facilities, we oncologists are facing an opposite trend, with many patients spending their last days in the hospital,” Numico explained to Univadis Italy. This observation led to the questions that prompted the study: Is this only a perception among doctors, or is it a real phenomenon? If the latter, why is it happening? As the expert points out, it is a commonly held belief that people today should not die in the hospital, and numerous studies conducted on healthy individuals suggest that 70%-80% of the population would prefer to die at home.

 

What’s Preferable

For their analysis, Numico and colleagues relied on death certificates published by the Italian National Institute of Statistics from 2015 to 2019, excluding data from the pandemic years to avoid potential biases.

The analysis of data pertaining to cancer deaths revealed that approximately 35% of Italian patients with cancer die in hospitals, with a slight increase over the study period. Of the patients who die elsewhere, 40% die at home and 20% die in hospice or other long-term care facilities. Home deaths have decreased by 3.09%, while those in hospices and long-term care facilities have increased by 2.71%, and hospital deaths have risen by 0.3%.

The study also highlighted notable geographical differences: Hospital deaths are more frequent in the north, while in the south, home deaths remain predominant, although hospital admissions are on the rise. “These differences reflect not only access to facilities but also cultural and social variables,” explained Numico. “Some end-of-life issues with cancer patients are more straightforward, while others are difficult to manage outside the hospital,” he said, recalling that many family members and caregivers are afraid they won’t be able to care for their loved ones properly without the support of an appropriate facility and skilled personnel.

Social factors also contribute to the increased use of hospitals for end-of-life care: Without a social and family network, it is often impossible to manage the final stages of life at home. “We cannot guarantee that dying at home is better for everyone; in some cases, the home cannot provide the necessary care and emotional support,” Numico added.

 

Attitudes Need Change

Looking beyond Italy, it is clear that this trend exists in other countries as well. For example, in the Netherlands — where community-based care is highly developed and includes practices such as euthanasia — hospital death rates are higher than those in Italy. In the United States, the trend is different, but this is largely due to the structure of the US healthcare system, where patients bear much of the financial burden of hospital admissions.

“The basic requests of patients and families are clear: They want a safe place that is adequately staffed and where the patient won’t suffer,” said Numico, questioning whether the home is truly the best place to die. “In reality, this is not always the case, and it’s important to focus on the quality of care in the final days rather than just the place of care,” he added.

Ruling out hospitals a priori as a place to die is not a winning strategy, according to the expert. Instead of trying to reverse the trend, he suggests integrating the hospital into a care network that prioritizes the patient’s well-being, regardless of the setting. “Our goal should not be to eliminate hospital deaths — a common request from hospital administrations — but rather to ensure that end-of-life care in hospitals is a dignified experience that respects the needs of the dying and their loved ones,” Numico said. “We must ensure that, wherever the end-of-life process occurs, it should happen in the best way possible, and the hospital must be a part of this overall framework,” he concluded.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than a third of all patients with cancer die in hospitals, a figure that has increased slightly in recent years, while deaths at home have decreased. These findings come from a recent study published in Cancer Epidemiology, which analyzed data on the different places in Italy where end of life occurs.

“Place of death is relevant both for individuals and for the society. Home is universally considered the optimal place of death, while dying in a hospital may be a signal of inappropriate end-of-life care,” wrote the authors, led by Gianmauro Numico, MD, head of the Oncology Department at the Santa Croce e Carle General Hospital in Cuneo, Italy.

“Despite the general trend toward strengthening community-based networks and the increasing number of hospice and long-term care facilities, we oncologists are facing an opposite trend, with many patients spending their last days in the hospital,” Numico explained to Univadis Italy. This observation led to the questions that prompted the study: Is this only a perception among doctors, or is it a real phenomenon? If the latter, why is it happening? As the expert points out, it is a commonly held belief that people today should not die in the hospital, and numerous studies conducted on healthy individuals suggest that 70%-80% of the population would prefer to die at home.

 

What’s Preferable

For their analysis, Numico and colleagues relied on death certificates published by the Italian National Institute of Statistics from 2015 to 2019, excluding data from the pandemic years to avoid potential biases.

The analysis of data pertaining to cancer deaths revealed that approximately 35% of Italian patients with cancer die in hospitals, with a slight increase over the study period. Of the patients who die elsewhere, 40% die at home and 20% die in hospice or other long-term care facilities. Home deaths have decreased by 3.09%, while those in hospices and long-term care facilities have increased by 2.71%, and hospital deaths have risen by 0.3%.

The study also highlighted notable geographical differences: Hospital deaths are more frequent in the north, while in the south, home deaths remain predominant, although hospital admissions are on the rise. “These differences reflect not only access to facilities but also cultural and social variables,” explained Numico. “Some end-of-life issues with cancer patients are more straightforward, while others are difficult to manage outside the hospital,” he said, recalling that many family members and caregivers are afraid they won’t be able to care for their loved ones properly without the support of an appropriate facility and skilled personnel.

Social factors also contribute to the increased use of hospitals for end-of-life care: Without a social and family network, it is often impossible to manage the final stages of life at home. “We cannot guarantee that dying at home is better for everyone; in some cases, the home cannot provide the necessary care and emotional support,” Numico added.

 

Attitudes Need Change

Looking beyond Italy, it is clear that this trend exists in other countries as well. For example, in the Netherlands — where community-based care is highly developed and includes practices such as euthanasia — hospital death rates are higher than those in Italy. In the United States, the trend is different, but this is largely due to the structure of the US healthcare system, where patients bear much of the financial burden of hospital admissions.

“The basic requests of patients and families are clear: They want a safe place that is adequately staffed and where the patient won’t suffer,” said Numico, questioning whether the home is truly the best place to die. “In reality, this is not always the case, and it’s important to focus on the quality of care in the final days rather than just the place of care,” he added.

Ruling out hospitals a priori as a place to die is not a winning strategy, according to the expert. Instead of trying to reverse the trend, he suggests integrating the hospital into a care network that prioritizes the patient’s well-being, regardless of the setting. “Our goal should not be to eliminate hospital deaths — a common request from hospital administrations — but rather to ensure that end-of-life care in hospitals is a dignified experience that respects the needs of the dying and their loved ones,” Numico said. “We must ensure that, wherever the end-of-life process occurs, it should happen in the best way possible, and the hospital must be a part of this overall framework,” he concluded.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than a third of all patients with cancer die in hospitals, a figure that has increased slightly in recent years, while deaths at home have decreased. These findings come from a recent study published in Cancer Epidemiology, which analyzed data on the different places in Italy where end of life occurs.

“Place of death is relevant both for individuals and for the society. Home is universally considered the optimal place of death, while dying in a hospital may be a signal of inappropriate end-of-life care,” wrote the authors, led by Gianmauro Numico, MD, head of the Oncology Department at the Santa Croce e Carle General Hospital in Cuneo, Italy.

“Despite the general trend toward strengthening community-based networks and the increasing number of hospice and long-term care facilities, we oncologists are facing an opposite trend, with many patients spending their last days in the hospital,” Numico explained to Univadis Italy. This observation led to the questions that prompted the study: Is this only a perception among doctors, or is it a real phenomenon? If the latter, why is it happening? As the expert points out, it is a commonly held belief that people today should not die in the hospital, and numerous studies conducted on healthy individuals suggest that 70%-80% of the population would prefer to die at home.

 

What’s Preferable

For their analysis, Numico and colleagues relied on death certificates published by the Italian National Institute of Statistics from 2015 to 2019, excluding data from the pandemic years to avoid potential biases.

The analysis of data pertaining to cancer deaths revealed that approximately 35% of Italian patients with cancer die in hospitals, with a slight increase over the study period. Of the patients who die elsewhere, 40% die at home and 20% die in hospice or other long-term care facilities. Home deaths have decreased by 3.09%, while those in hospices and long-term care facilities have increased by 2.71%, and hospital deaths have risen by 0.3%.

The study also highlighted notable geographical differences: Hospital deaths are more frequent in the north, while in the south, home deaths remain predominant, although hospital admissions are on the rise. “These differences reflect not only access to facilities but also cultural and social variables,” explained Numico. “Some end-of-life issues with cancer patients are more straightforward, while others are difficult to manage outside the hospital,” he said, recalling that many family members and caregivers are afraid they won’t be able to care for their loved ones properly without the support of an appropriate facility and skilled personnel.

Social factors also contribute to the increased use of hospitals for end-of-life care: Without a social and family network, it is often impossible to manage the final stages of life at home. “We cannot guarantee that dying at home is better for everyone; in some cases, the home cannot provide the necessary care and emotional support,” Numico added.

 

Attitudes Need Change

Looking beyond Italy, it is clear that this trend exists in other countries as well. For example, in the Netherlands — where community-based care is highly developed and includes practices such as euthanasia — hospital death rates are higher than those in Italy. In the United States, the trend is different, but this is largely due to the structure of the US healthcare system, where patients bear much of the financial burden of hospital admissions.

“The basic requests of patients and families are clear: They want a safe place that is adequately staffed and where the patient won’t suffer,” said Numico, questioning whether the home is truly the best place to die. “In reality, this is not always the case, and it’s important to focus on the quality of care in the final days rather than just the place of care,” he added.

Ruling out hospitals a priori as a place to die is not a winning strategy, according to the expert. Instead of trying to reverse the trend, he suggests integrating the hospital into a care network that prioritizes the patient’s well-being, regardless of the setting. “Our goal should not be to eliminate hospital deaths — a common request from hospital administrations — but rather to ensure that end-of-life care in hospitals is a dignified experience that respects the needs of the dying and their loved ones,” Numico said. “We must ensure that, wherever the end-of-life process occurs, it should happen in the best way possible, and the hospital must be a part of this overall framework,” he concluded.

This story was translated from Univadis Italy using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A new study linked longer duration and deeper intensity of tobacco smoking to more genetic mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), a group of bone marrow cancers that are similar to acute myeloid leukemia.

The prospective National MDS Natural History Study evaluated 1898 patients with recently diagnosed or suspected MDS. An adjusted analysis linked higher number of pack-years to more mutations (P = .006), with those at the 90th percentile with 3.5 times the number of mutations as nonsmokers, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The findings “suggest that smoking potentially contributes to the multistep molecular genetic pathogenesis that ultimately results in diagnosis of the cancer,” said corresponding author Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System in Florida, at a news briefing. “The more you smoke, the more likely you are to acquire more mutations and even develop a higher risk of myelodysplastic syndromes. [More smoking] was also associated with progression and survival.”

While numbers are uncertain, an estimated 10,000 or more people in the United States each year are diagnosed with MDS, also known as preleukemia, according to the American Cancer Society. Median survival ranges from 1 to 10.6 years based on risk group, although the cancer society says the statistics are dated and mainly from Europe.

Multiple studies have linked smoking to MDS. The new study aims to understand the possible effects of smoking on genetic mutations.

The research analyzed 1898 patients enrolled from 2016 to 2023 (52% who had ever smoked; 18% current smokers; mean smoking years, 29.8 ± 16.9 years). The patients had diagnoses of MDSs, MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap, or precursor conditions such as clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS).

Smokers were more likely than nonsmokers to be men (68% vs 54%; P < .001) and aged 70-79 years (45% vs 34%; P < .001).

After adjustment for confounders, smokers had more average mutations linked to MDS than nonsmokers (2.0 vs 1.4; P = .04). Those at the 75th percentile of pack-years had 1.8 times as many MDS-linked mutations as nonsmokers.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of disease progression was higher in long-term smokers than in nonsmokers and those with shorter smoking history (mean proportion progressed, 20+ years vs < 20 years smoking/nonsmoking, 27% [19%-36%] vs 18% [13%-24%]; P < .05, respectively).

Also, overall survival was lower in smokers than in nonsmokers for patients with CCUS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.03-3.55; P = .04) but not for those with MDS (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.53-1.30; P = .41).

“The data suggests that a patient with a new diagnosis of MDS who also smokes should be counseled to stop smoking,” Sekeres said.

This may seem counterintuitive to patients, he acknowledged. When Sekeres was a medical student, he counseled a female patient with advanced lung cancer to quit smoking. “The patient looked at me like I had three heads and she said: ‘Why should I stop smoking? The cats are already out of the bag. I have lung cancer.’ ”

But the new study points to a possible benefit from quitting smoking while sick. “It appears that smoking contributes to the acquisition of new genetic mutations that can lead to worsening of the myelodysplastic syndromes and even evolution of the cancer into acute myeloid leukemia,” Sekeres said.

He added: “One thing to understand about these cancers of the bone marrow is they can take years or decades to develop. They’re not one-hit wonders. Smoking caused very specific genetic mutations. The cool part of this is that they’re the same genetic mutations smoking has been shown to cause in cancers like lung cancer, so we’re seeing consistency across cancers.”

Sekeres said he himself will counsel patients with MDS or acute myeloid leukemia to stop smoking. “If there’s anything we can do to intervene to prevent myelodysplastic syndrome from evolving into acute leukemia, my word, I sure I’m going to try it.”

In an interview, Peter Greenberg, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford Cancer Center in California, who’s familiar with the study but didn’t take part in the research, said the study suggests that smoking in MDS isn’t just related to exposure to fumes “but appears to be a much more widespread problem” related to its impact on generating hematologic stem cell mutations.

Most clinicians don’t warn patients with MDS about the dangers of smoking because they’re not aware of tobacco’s connection to the disease, Greenberg said. But there’s another reason to bring up smoking, he said: It boosts the risk for cardiovascular disease, which may be partially responsible for decreased survival in smokers.

Sekeres disclosed ties with Kurome, Schrödinger, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Other authors reported multiple and various relationships with industry. Greenberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A new study linked longer duration and deeper intensity of tobacco smoking to more genetic mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), a group of bone marrow cancers that are similar to acute myeloid leukemia.

The prospective National MDS Natural History Study evaluated 1898 patients with recently diagnosed or suspected MDS. An adjusted analysis linked higher number of pack-years to more mutations (P = .006), with those at the 90th percentile with 3.5 times the number of mutations as nonsmokers, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The findings “suggest that smoking potentially contributes to the multistep molecular genetic pathogenesis that ultimately results in diagnosis of the cancer,” said corresponding author Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System in Florida, at a news briefing. “The more you smoke, the more likely you are to acquire more mutations and even develop a higher risk of myelodysplastic syndromes. [More smoking] was also associated with progression and survival.”

While numbers are uncertain, an estimated 10,000 or more people in the United States each year are diagnosed with MDS, also known as preleukemia, according to the American Cancer Society. Median survival ranges from 1 to 10.6 years based on risk group, although the cancer society says the statistics are dated and mainly from Europe.

Multiple studies have linked smoking to MDS. The new study aims to understand the possible effects of smoking on genetic mutations.

The research analyzed 1898 patients enrolled from 2016 to 2023 (52% who had ever smoked; 18% current smokers; mean smoking years, 29.8 ± 16.9 years). The patients had diagnoses of MDSs, MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap, or precursor conditions such as clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS).

Smokers were more likely than nonsmokers to be men (68% vs 54%; P < .001) and aged 70-79 years (45% vs 34%; P < .001).

After adjustment for confounders, smokers had more average mutations linked to MDS than nonsmokers (2.0 vs 1.4; P = .04). Those at the 75th percentile of pack-years had 1.8 times as many MDS-linked mutations as nonsmokers.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of disease progression was higher in long-term smokers than in nonsmokers and those with shorter smoking history (mean proportion progressed, 20+ years vs < 20 years smoking/nonsmoking, 27% [19%-36%] vs 18% [13%-24%]; P < .05, respectively).

Also, overall survival was lower in smokers than in nonsmokers for patients with CCUS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.03-3.55; P = .04) but not for those with MDS (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.53-1.30; P = .41).

“The data suggests that a patient with a new diagnosis of MDS who also smokes should be counseled to stop smoking,” Sekeres said.

This may seem counterintuitive to patients, he acknowledged. When Sekeres was a medical student, he counseled a female patient with advanced lung cancer to quit smoking. “The patient looked at me like I had three heads and she said: ‘Why should I stop smoking? The cats are already out of the bag. I have lung cancer.’ ”

But the new study points to a possible benefit from quitting smoking while sick. “It appears that smoking contributes to the acquisition of new genetic mutations that can lead to worsening of the myelodysplastic syndromes and even evolution of the cancer into acute myeloid leukemia,” Sekeres said.

He added: “One thing to understand about these cancers of the bone marrow is they can take years or decades to develop. They’re not one-hit wonders. Smoking caused very specific genetic mutations. The cool part of this is that they’re the same genetic mutations smoking has been shown to cause in cancers like lung cancer, so we’re seeing consistency across cancers.”

Sekeres said he himself will counsel patients with MDS or acute myeloid leukemia to stop smoking. “If there’s anything we can do to intervene to prevent myelodysplastic syndrome from evolving into acute leukemia, my word, I sure I’m going to try it.”

In an interview, Peter Greenberg, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford Cancer Center in California, who’s familiar with the study but didn’t take part in the research, said the study suggests that smoking in MDS isn’t just related to exposure to fumes “but appears to be a much more widespread problem” related to its impact on generating hematologic stem cell mutations.

Most clinicians don’t warn patients with MDS about the dangers of smoking because they’re not aware of tobacco’s connection to the disease, Greenberg said. But there’s another reason to bring up smoking, he said: It boosts the risk for cardiovascular disease, which may be partially responsible for decreased survival in smokers.

Sekeres disclosed ties with Kurome, Schrödinger, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Other authors reported multiple and various relationships with industry. Greenberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — A new study linked longer duration and deeper intensity of tobacco smoking to more genetic mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs), a group of bone marrow cancers that are similar to acute myeloid leukemia.

The prospective National MDS Natural History Study evaluated 1898 patients with recently diagnosed or suspected MDS. An adjusted analysis linked higher number of pack-years to more mutations (P = .006), with those at the 90th percentile with 3.5 times the number of mutations as nonsmokers, researchers reported at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting.

The findings “suggest that smoking potentially contributes to the multistep molecular genetic pathogenesis that ultimately results in diagnosis of the cancer,” said corresponding author Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Health System in Florida, at a news briefing. “The more you smoke, the more likely you are to acquire more mutations and even develop a higher risk of myelodysplastic syndromes. [More smoking] was also associated with progression and survival.”

While numbers are uncertain, an estimated 10,000 or more people in the United States each year are diagnosed with MDS, also known as preleukemia, according to the American Cancer Society. Median survival ranges from 1 to 10.6 years based on risk group, although the cancer society says the statistics are dated and mainly from Europe.

Multiple studies have linked smoking to MDS. The new study aims to understand the possible effects of smoking on genetic mutations.

The research analyzed 1898 patients enrolled from 2016 to 2023 (52% who had ever smoked; 18% current smokers; mean smoking years, 29.8 ± 16.9 years). The patients had diagnoses of MDSs, MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap, or precursor conditions such as clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS).

Smokers were more likely than nonsmokers to be men (68% vs 54%; P < .001) and aged 70-79 years (45% vs 34%; P < .001).

After adjustment for confounders, smokers had more average mutations linked to MDS than nonsmokers (2.0 vs 1.4; P = .04). Those at the 75th percentile of pack-years had 1.8 times as many MDS-linked mutations as nonsmokers.

The 5-year cumulative incidence of disease progression was higher in long-term smokers than in nonsmokers and those with shorter smoking history (mean proportion progressed, 20+ years vs < 20 years smoking/nonsmoking, 27% [19%-36%] vs 18% [13%-24%]; P < .05, respectively).

Also, overall survival was lower in smokers than in nonsmokers for patients with CCUS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.91; 95% CI, 1.03-3.55; P = .04) but not for those with MDS (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.53-1.30; P = .41).

“The data suggests that a patient with a new diagnosis of MDS who also smokes should be counseled to stop smoking,” Sekeres said.

This may seem counterintuitive to patients, he acknowledged. When Sekeres was a medical student, he counseled a female patient with advanced lung cancer to quit smoking. “The patient looked at me like I had three heads and she said: ‘Why should I stop smoking? The cats are already out of the bag. I have lung cancer.’ ”

But the new study points to a possible benefit from quitting smoking while sick. “It appears that smoking contributes to the acquisition of new genetic mutations that can lead to worsening of the myelodysplastic syndromes and even evolution of the cancer into acute myeloid leukemia,” Sekeres said.

He added: “One thing to understand about these cancers of the bone marrow is they can take years or decades to develop. They’re not one-hit wonders. Smoking caused very specific genetic mutations. The cool part of this is that they’re the same genetic mutations smoking has been shown to cause in cancers like lung cancer, so we’re seeing consistency across cancers.”

Sekeres said he himself will counsel patients with MDS or acute myeloid leukemia to stop smoking. “If there’s anything we can do to intervene to prevent myelodysplastic syndrome from evolving into acute leukemia, my word, I sure I’m going to try it.”

In an interview, Peter Greenberg, MD, professor of medicine at Stanford Cancer Center in California, who’s familiar with the study but didn’t take part in the research, said the study suggests that smoking in MDS isn’t just related to exposure to fumes “but appears to be a much more widespread problem” related to its impact on generating hematologic stem cell mutations.

Most clinicians don’t warn patients with MDS about the dangers of smoking because they’re not aware of tobacco’s connection to the disease, Greenberg said. But there’s another reason to bring up smoking, he said: It boosts the risk for cardiovascular disease, which may be partially responsible for decreased survival in smokers.

Sekeres disclosed ties with Kurome, Schrödinger, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Other authors reported multiple and various relationships with industry. Greenberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.