AVAHO

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with cancer are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and worse outcomes, a new review confirms. It also found that patients with leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and lung cancer are at greatest risk.

Blacks with cancer are at even higher risk, and for patients with colorectal cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the risk is higher for women than for men. (This contrasts with findings in noncancer populations, where men are more at risk from COVID-19 and severe outcomes than women.)

These findings come from a huge review of electronic health records of 73.4 million patients in the United States. They “highlight the need to protect and monitor patients with cancer as part of the strategy to control the pandemic,” the authors wrote.

The review was published online Dec. 10 in JAMA Oncology.

The greater risk for COVID-19 among patients with cancer is well known, but breaking the risk down by cancer type is novel, wrote the investigators, led by Quanqiu Wang, MS, Center for Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

Cancer patients are immunocompromised and have more contact with the health care system, which increases their risk for COVID-19. But which bodily systems are affected by cancer seems to matter. In patients with blood cancer, for example, COVID-19 is probably more dangerous, because blood cancer weakens the immune system directly, the authors suggested.

The increased risk for infection and hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 among Black patients with cancer might be because of biology, but it is more likely because of factors that weren’t captured in the database review. Such factors include social adversity, economic status, access to health care, and lifestyle, the researchers noted.

For this study, the investigators analyzed electronic health records held in the IBM Watson Health Explorys system, which captures about 15% of new cancer diagnoses in the United States.

The analysis found that, as of Aug. 14, 2020, 16,570 patients (0.02%) had been diagnosed with COVID-19; about 1,200 also had been diagnosed with cancer. Of those, 690 were diagnosed with cancer in the previous year, which counted as a recent cancer diagnosis in the analysis. The study included 13 common cancers, including endometrial, kidney, liver, lung, gastrointestinal, prostate, skin, and thyroid cancers, among others.

Patients with any cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.46) as well as those with a recent cancer diagnosis (aOR, 7.14) had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than those without cancer, after adjusting for asthma, cardiovascular diseases, nursing home stays, and other risk factors.

The risk for COVID-19 was highest among patients recently diagnosed with leukemia (aOR, 12.16), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (aOR, 8.54), and lung cancer (aOR 7.66). The risk for COVID-19 was lower for patients with cancers associated with worse prognoses, including pancreatic (aOR, 6.26) and liver (aOR, 6.49) cancer. It was weakest for patients with thyroid cancer (aOR, 3.10; P for all < .001).

Hospitalization was more common in recent cancer patients with COVID-19 than in COVID-19 patients without cancer (47.46% vs. 24.6%), as was COVID-19–related death (14.93% vs. 5.26%). Among cancer patients who did not have COVID-19, 12.39% were hospitalized, and 4.03% died. The findings suggest a synergistic effect between the COVID-19 and cancer, the team noted.

Among patients recently diagnosed with cancer, Black patients – 10.3% of the overall study population – had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 than White patients. The racial disparity was largest for patients with breast cancer (aOR, 5.44), followed by patients with prostate cancer (aOR, 5.10), colorectal cancer (aOR, 3.30), and lung cancer (aOR, 2.53; P for all < .001).

Hospitalizations were more common among Black patients with cancer and COVID-19 than White patients. There was also a trend toward higher mortality among Black patients (18.52% vs. 13.51%; P = .11)

However, these differences may not be related to race, oncologist Aakash Desai, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues noted in an accompanying commentary. “Interestingly, a previous study of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without cancer demonstrated that mortality rates for Black patients were comparable to those for White patients after adjustment for both comorbidities and deprivation index, suggesting that observed differences are mainly owing to societal disparities rather than biology.”

The editorialists also noted that the finding that Black patients with cancer are at greater risk for COVID-19 (aOR, 1.58-5.44, depending on cancer) echoes the findings in the general population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates a severalfold increased risk among Black patients. These higher rates may largely be explained by social determinants, they suggested. Such factors include increased burden of comorbidities, crowded living conditions (inner cities, multigenerational homes, etc.), dependence on public transportation or child care, and higher work-related exposures. “Until such societal disparities are accounted for, we cannot presume these findings are caused by any inherent differences among racial groups,” the editorialists wrote.

“Clearly, the haunting spotlight of COVID-19 has dramatically illuminated known U.S. health care and societal disparities,” Dr. Desai and colleagues wrote. “This situation should be a wake-up call that brings much-needed improvements in U.S. equity policies, including but not limited to better health care access. Nothing appears more critical for alleviating these disparate clinical outcomes in this time of crisis and beyond,” they declared.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society, and other organizations. The investigators disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rechallenge with carboplatin plus etoposide is a “reasonable” second-line chemotherapy option for patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), researchers reported in The Lancet Oncology.

In a phase 3 trial, carboplatin plus etoposide significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with topotecan, in patients with advanced or relapsed, sensitive SCLC.

All patients had responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide, but they experienced relapse or progression 90 days or more after completing that treatment, according to study author Nathalie Baize, MD, of Angers University Hospital in France, and colleagues.

For this trial, Dr. Baize and colleagues enrolled 164 patients with advanced or relapsed SCLC. The median age of the 162 evaluable patients was 64 years, about two-thirds were men, and about 60% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1.

The patients were randomized 1:1 to intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min on day 1) plus intravenous etoposide (100 mg/m² from day 1 to day 3) or to oral topotecan (2.3 mg/m² from day 1 to day 5 for six cycles). Primary prophylactic filgrastim was recommended for all patients in both treatment groups.
 

Results: Survival and adverse events

The median follow-up was 22.7 months. The median PFS was significantly longer in the combination therapy arm, at 4.7 months versus 2.7 months in the topotecan arm (stratified hazard ratio 0.57, P = .0041).

The median overall survival was similar in both arms, at 7.5 months in the carboplatin-etoposide arm and 7.4 months in the topotecan arm.

Patients in the carboplatin-etoposide arm had a significantly higher objective response rate, at 49% versus 25% in the topotecan arm (P = .0024).

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (in the topotecan and combination arms, respectively) were neutropenia (22% vs. 14%), thrombocytopenia (36% vs. 31%), and anemia (21% vs. 25%).

Serious adverse events with hospitalization were reported in 37% of patients in the carboplatin-etoposide arm 43% in the topotecan arm. Febrile neutropenia with sepsis led to two treatment-related deaths in the topotecan group but none in the carboplatin-etoposide group.
 

Reasonable option for some

Based on the results of this trial, Dr. Baize and colleagues concluded that carboplatin-etoposide rechallenge “can be considered a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer.”

However, while this trial was enrolling patients, immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations became the standard of care in SCLC, Oscar Arrieta, MD, of Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, and colleagues noted in a related editorial.

Therefore, “reasonable doubts emerge regarding the application of this strategy in patients receiving immunotherapy,” Dr. Arrieta and colleagues wrote.

The editorialists urged conduct of a randomized trial to evaluate rechallenge with carboplatin plus etoposide versus lurbinectedin, which was approved earlier this year by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of sensitive and resistant relapsed SCLC.

Commenting on the choice between a platinum-etoposide combination and lurbinectedin, Sarah Goldberg, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that she and her colleagues have been using the chemotherapy combination for several years.

“This trial confirms that practice and that it’s still a reasonable option for some patients,” Dr. Goldberg said in an interview.

For patients who had a very good first-line response to platinum-etoposide, longer than 180 days (even longer than the 90-day standard in the current trial), she said, “it seems like a rechallenge with platinum-etoposide would potentially be even more effective, and I’d save lurbinectedin for a later line.

“With refractory disease, less than 90 days, I would consider lurbinectedin,” Dr. Goldberg said.

This study was funded by Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie). The researchers disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, AbbVie, and many other companies. Dr. Arrieta disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The other editorialists declared no competing interests. Dr. Goldberg disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, Spectrum, Blueprint Medicine, Sanofi Genzyme, Daiichi Sankyo, and Regeneron.
 

SOURCE: Baize N et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:1224-33.

Rechallenge with carboplatin plus etoposide is a “reasonable” second-line chemotherapy option for patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), researchers reported in The Lancet Oncology.

In a phase 3 trial, carboplatin plus etoposide significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with topotecan, in patients with advanced or relapsed, sensitive SCLC.

All patients had responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide, but they experienced relapse or progression 90 days or more after completing that treatment, according to study author Nathalie Baize, MD, of Angers University Hospital in France, and colleagues.

For this trial, Dr. Baize and colleagues enrolled 164 patients with advanced or relapsed SCLC. The median age of the 162 evaluable patients was 64 years, about two-thirds were men, and about 60% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1.

The patients were randomized 1:1 to intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min on day 1) plus intravenous etoposide (100 mg/m² from day 1 to day 3) or to oral topotecan (2.3 mg/m² from day 1 to day 5 for six cycles). Primary prophylactic filgrastim was recommended for all patients in both treatment groups.
 

Results: Survival and adverse events

The median follow-up was 22.7 months. The median PFS was significantly longer in the combination therapy arm, at 4.7 months versus 2.7 months in the topotecan arm (stratified hazard ratio 0.57, P = .0041).

The median overall survival was similar in both arms, at 7.5 months in the carboplatin-etoposide arm and 7.4 months in the topotecan arm.

Patients in the carboplatin-etoposide arm had a significantly higher objective response rate, at 49% versus 25% in the topotecan arm (P = .0024).

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (in the topotecan and combination arms, respectively) were neutropenia (22% vs. 14%), thrombocytopenia (36% vs. 31%), and anemia (21% vs. 25%).

Serious adverse events with hospitalization were reported in 37% of patients in the carboplatin-etoposide arm 43% in the topotecan arm. Febrile neutropenia with sepsis led to two treatment-related deaths in the topotecan group but none in the carboplatin-etoposide group.
 

Reasonable option for some

Based on the results of this trial, Dr. Baize and colleagues concluded that carboplatin-etoposide rechallenge “can be considered a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer.”

However, while this trial was enrolling patients, immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations became the standard of care in SCLC, Oscar Arrieta, MD, of Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, and colleagues noted in a related editorial.

Therefore, “reasonable doubts emerge regarding the application of this strategy in patients receiving immunotherapy,” Dr. Arrieta and colleagues wrote.

The editorialists urged conduct of a randomized trial to evaluate rechallenge with carboplatin plus etoposide versus lurbinectedin, which was approved earlier this year by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of sensitive and resistant relapsed SCLC.

Commenting on the choice between a platinum-etoposide combination and lurbinectedin, Sarah Goldberg, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that she and her colleagues have been using the chemotherapy combination for several years.

“This trial confirms that practice and that it’s still a reasonable option for some patients,” Dr. Goldberg said in an interview.

For patients who had a very good first-line response to platinum-etoposide, longer than 180 days (even longer than the 90-day standard in the current trial), she said, “it seems like a rechallenge with platinum-etoposide would potentially be even more effective, and I’d save lurbinectedin for a later line.

“With refractory disease, less than 90 days, I would consider lurbinectedin,” Dr. Goldberg said.

This study was funded by Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie). The researchers disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, AbbVie, and many other companies. Dr. Arrieta disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The other editorialists declared no competing interests. Dr. Goldberg disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, Spectrum, Blueprint Medicine, Sanofi Genzyme, Daiichi Sankyo, and Regeneron.
 

SOURCE: Baize N et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:1224-33.

Rechallenge with carboplatin plus etoposide is a “reasonable” second-line chemotherapy option for patients with relapsed small-cell lung cancer (SCLC), researchers reported in The Lancet Oncology.

In a phase 3 trial, carboplatin plus etoposide significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), when compared with topotecan, in patients with advanced or relapsed, sensitive SCLC.

All patients had responded to first-line platinum plus etoposide, but they experienced relapse or progression 90 days or more after completing that treatment, according to study author Nathalie Baize, MD, of Angers University Hospital in France, and colleagues.

For this trial, Dr. Baize and colleagues enrolled 164 patients with advanced or relapsed SCLC. The median age of the 162 evaluable patients was 64 years, about two-thirds were men, and about 60% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1.

The patients were randomized 1:1 to intravenous carboplatin (area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min on day 1) plus intravenous etoposide (100 mg/m² from day 1 to day 3) or to oral topotecan (2.3 mg/m² from day 1 to day 5 for six cycles). Primary prophylactic filgrastim was recommended for all patients in both treatment groups.
 

Results: Survival and adverse events

The median follow-up was 22.7 months. The median PFS was significantly longer in the combination therapy arm, at 4.7 months versus 2.7 months in the topotecan arm (stratified hazard ratio 0.57, P = .0041).

The median overall survival was similar in both arms, at 7.5 months in the carboplatin-etoposide arm and 7.4 months in the topotecan arm.

Patients in the carboplatin-etoposide arm had a significantly higher objective response rate, at 49% versus 25% in the topotecan arm (P = .0024).

The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (in the topotecan and combination arms, respectively) were neutropenia (22% vs. 14%), thrombocytopenia (36% vs. 31%), and anemia (21% vs. 25%).

Serious adverse events with hospitalization were reported in 37% of patients in the carboplatin-etoposide arm 43% in the topotecan arm. Febrile neutropenia with sepsis led to two treatment-related deaths in the topotecan group but none in the carboplatin-etoposide group.
 

Reasonable option for some

Based on the results of this trial, Dr. Baize and colleagues concluded that carboplatin-etoposide rechallenge “can be considered a reasonable second-line chemotherapy option for patients with sensitive relapsed small-cell lung cancer.”

However, while this trial was enrolling patients, immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations became the standard of care in SCLC, Oscar Arrieta, MD, of Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico City, and colleagues noted in a related editorial.

Therefore, “reasonable doubts emerge regarding the application of this strategy in patients receiving immunotherapy,” Dr. Arrieta and colleagues wrote.

The editorialists urged conduct of a randomized trial to evaluate rechallenge with carboplatin plus etoposide versus lurbinectedin, which was approved earlier this year by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of sensitive and resistant relapsed SCLC.

Commenting on the choice between a platinum-etoposide combination and lurbinectedin, Sarah Goldberg, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that she and her colleagues have been using the chemotherapy combination for several years.

“This trial confirms that practice and that it’s still a reasonable option for some patients,” Dr. Goldberg said in an interview.

For patients who had a very good first-line response to platinum-etoposide, longer than 180 days (even longer than the 90-day standard in the current trial), she said, “it seems like a rechallenge with platinum-etoposide would potentially be even more effective, and I’d save lurbinectedin for a later line.

“With refractory disease, less than 90 days, I would consider lurbinectedin,” Dr. Goldberg said.

This study was funded by Amgen and the French Lung Cancer Group (Groupe Français de Pneumo-Cancérologie). The researchers disclosed relationships with Pfizer, Roche, AbbVie, and many other companies. Dr. Arrieta disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Lilly, Merck, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. The other editorialists declared no competing interests. Dr. Goldberg disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Amgen, Spectrum, Blueprint Medicine, Sanofi Genzyme, Daiichi Sankyo, and Regeneron.
 

SOURCE: Baize N et al. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:1224-33.

Patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed after extensive cancer treatment, and who fall ill with COVID-19, can shed viable SARS-CoV-2 virus for at least 2 months after symptom onset and may need extended periods of isolation.

Live-virus shedding was detected in 18 patients who had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplants or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and in 2 patients with lymphoma. 

The finding was reported Dec. 1 in a research letter in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

Individuals who are otherwise healthy when they get COVID-19 are “no longer infectious after the first week of illness,” said lead author Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. 

“We need to keep an open mind about how [much] longer immunocompromised patients could pose an infection risk to others,” she added.

Dr. Kamboj said in an interview that her team’s previous experience with stem cell transplant recipients had suggested that severely immunocompromised patients shed other viruses (such as respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza, and influenza) for longer periods of time than do healthy controls.

Based on their latest findings, the investigators suggest that current guidelines for COVID-19 isolation precautions may need to be revised for immunocompromised patients. Even if only a small proportion of patients with cancer who have COVID-19 remain contagious for prolonged periods of time, “it’s a residual risk that we need to address,” Dr. Kamboj said. 

Dr. Kamboj also suggested that physicians follow test-based criteria to determine when a patient undergoing transplant can be released from isolation.
 

Shedding of viable virus

For this study, the investigators used cell cultures to detect viable virus in serially collected nasopharyngeal and sputum samples from 20 immunocompromised patients who had COVID-19 (diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 10 and April 20).  

Patients had lymphoma (n = 8), multiple myeloma (n= 7), acute leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 4), and chronic leukemia (n = 1). There were 16 patients who had undergone transplant, 2 who had received CAR T-cell therapy, and 2 who had received other therapy.

There were 15 patients receiving active treatment or chemotherapy, and 11 developed severe COVID-19 infection. 

In total, 78 respiratory samples were collected.

“Viral RNA was detected for up to 78 days after the onset of symptoms,” the researchers reported, “[and] viable virus was detected in 10 of 14 nasopharyngeal samples (71%) that were available from the first day of laboratory testing.”

Five patients were followed up, and from these patients, the team grew virus in culture for up to 61 days after symptom onset. Two among this small group of five patients had received allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and one patient had been treated with CAR T-cell therapy within the previous 6 months. This patient remained seronegative for antibodies to the coronavirus.

For 11 patients, the team obtained serial sample genomes and found that  “each patient was infected by a distinct virus and there were no major changes in the consensus sequences of the original serial specimens or cultured isolates.” These findings were consistent with persistent infection, they noted.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed after extensive cancer treatment, and who fall ill with COVID-19, can shed viable SARS-CoV-2 virus for at least 2 months after symptom onset and may need extended periods of isolation.

Live-virus shedding was detected in 18 patients who had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplants or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and in 2 patients with lymphoma. 

The finding was reported Dec. 1 in a research letter in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

Individuals who are otherwise healthy when they get COVID-19 are “no longer infectious after the first week of illness,” said lead author Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. 

“We need to keep an open mind about how [much] longer immunocompromised patients could pose an infection risk to others,” she added.

Dr. Kamboj said in an interview that her team’s previous experience with stem cell transplant recipients had suggested that severely immunocompromised patients shed other viruses (such as respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza, and influenza) for longer periods of time than do healthy controls.

Based on their latest findings, the investigators suggest that current guidelines for COVID-19 isolation precautions may need to be revised for immunocompromised patients. Even if only a small proportion of patients with cancer who have COVID-19 remain contagious for prolonged periods of time, “it’s a residual risk that we need to address,” Dr. Kamboj said. 

Dr. Kamboj also suggested that physicians follow test-based criteria to determine when a patient undergoing transplant can be released from isolation.
 

Shedding of viable virus

For this study, the investigators used cell cultures to detect viable virus in serially collected nasopharyngeal and sputum samples from 20 immunocompromised patients who had COVID-19 (diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 10 and April 20).  

Patients had lymphoma (n = 8), multiple myeloma (n= 7), acute leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 4), and chronic leukemia (n = 1). There were 16 patients who had undergone transplant, 2 who had received CAR T-cell therapy, and 2 who had received other therapy.

There were 15 patients receiving active treatment or chemotherapy, and 11 developed severe COVID-19 infection. 

In total, 78 respiratory samples were collected.

“Viral RNA was detected for up to 78 days after the onset of symptoms,” the researchers reported, “[and] viable virus was detected in 10 of 14 nasopharyngeal samples (71%) that were available from the first day of laboratory testing.”

Five patients were followed up, and from these patients, the team grew virus in culture for up to 61 days after symptom onset. Two among this small group of five patients had received allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and one patient had been treated with CAR T-cell therapy within the previous 6 months. This patient remained seronegative for antibodies to the coronavirus.

For 11 patients, the team obtained serial sample genomes and found that  “each patient was infected by a distinct virus and there were no major changes in the consensus sequences of the original serial specimens or cultured isolates.” These findings were consistent with persistent infection, they noted.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who are profoundly immunosuppressed after extensive cancer treatment, and who fall ill with COVID-19, can shed viable SARS-CoV-2 virus for at least 2 months after symptom onset and may need extended periods of isolation.

Live-virus shedding was detected in 18 patients who had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplants or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and in 2 patients with lymphoma. 

The finding was reported Dec. 1 in a research letter in the New England Journal of Medicine. 

Individuals who are otherwise healthy when they get COVID-19 are “no longer infectious after the first week of illness,” said lead author Mini Kamboj, MD, chief medical epidemiologist, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York. 

“We need to keep an open mind about how [much] longer immunocompromised patients could pose an infection risk to others,” she added.

Dr. Kamboj said in an interview that her team’s previous experience with stem cell transplant recipients had suggested that severely immunocompromised patients shed other viruses (such as respiratory syncytial virus, parainfluenza, and influenza) for longer periods of time than do healthy controls.

Based on their latest findings, the investigators suggest that current guidelines for COVID-19 isolation precautions may need to be revised for immunocompromised patients. Even if only a small proportion of patients with cancer who have COVID-19 remain contagious for prolonged periods of time, “it’s a residual risk that we need to address,” Dr. Kamboj said. 

Dr. Kamboj also suggested that physicians follow test-based criteria to determine when a patient undergoing transplant can be released from isolation.
 

Shedding of viable virus

For this study, the investigators used cell cultures to detect viable virus in serially collected nasopharyngeal and sputum samples from 20 immunocompromised patients who had COVID-19 (diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 10 and April 20).  

Patients had lymphoma (n = 8), multiple myeloma (n= 7), acute leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 4), and chronic leukemia (n = 1). There were 16 patients who had undergone transplant, 2 who had received CAR T-cell therapy, and 2 who had received other therapy.

There were 15 patients receiving active treatment or chemotherapy, and 11 developed severe COVID-19 infection. 

In total, 78 respiratory samples were collected.

“Viral RNA was detected for up to 78 days after the onset of symptoms,” the researchers reported, “[and] viable virus was detected in 10 of 14 nasopharyngeal samples (71%) that were available from the first day of laboratory testing.”

Five patients were followed up, and from these patients, the team grew virus in culture for up to 61 days after symptom onset. Two among this small group of five patients had received allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and one patient had been treated with CAR T-cell therapy within the previous 6 months. This patient remained seronegative for antibodies to the coronavirus.

For 11 patients, the team obtained serial sample genomes and found that  “each patient was infected by a distinct virus and there were no major changes in the consensus sequences of the original serial specimens or cultured isolates.” These findings were consistent with persistent infection, they noted.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black race is the most important risk factor for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and is associated with poor survival, according to new findings.

Among patients with AML younger than 60 years, the rate of overall 3-year survival was significantly less among Black patients than White patients (34% vs. 43%). The risk for death was 27% higher for Black patients compared with White patients.

“Our study demonstrates the delicate interplay between a variety of factors that influence survival disparities, particularly for younger Black AML patients,” said first author Bhavana Bhatnagar, DO, of the Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “We were able to confirm the impact of socioeconomic factors while also demonstrating that being Black is, in and of itself, an independent poor prognostic variable for survival.”

She noted that the persistently poor outcomes of young Black patients that were seen despite similar treatments in clinical trials strongly suggest that additional factors have a bearing on their survival.

The findings of the study were presented during the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online this year. The study was simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery.

Racial disparities in cancer outcomes remain a challenge. The term “health disparities” describes the differences of health outcomes among different groups, said Chancellor Donald, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, who introduced the article at the meeting. “Racial health disparities usually result from an unequal distribution of power and resources, not genetics.

“The examination of health disparities is certainly a worthwhile endeavor,” he continued. “For generations, differences in key health outcomes have negatively impacted the quality of life and shortened the life span of countless individuals. As scientists, clinicians, and invested members of our shared society, we are obligated to obtain a profound understanding of the mechanisms and impact of this morbid reality.”
 

Black race a risk factor

For their study, Dr. Bhatnagar and colleagues conducted a nationwide population analysis using data from the Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute to identify 11,190 adults aged 18-60 years who were diagnosed with AML between 1986 and 2015.

To characterize molecular features, they conducted targeted sequencing of 81 genes in 1,339 patients with AML who were treated on frontline Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) protocols based on standard-intensity cytarabine/anthracycline induction followed by consolidation between 1986 and 2016. None of these patients received an allogeneic stem cell transplant when they achieved complete remission.

Although overall survival has improved during the past 3 decades, survival disparities between Black and White patients has widened over time (P < .001). The authors found a nonstatistically significant difference in survival between 1986 and 1995 (White patients, n = 1,365; Black patients, n = 160; P = .19). However, the difference was significant between 1996 and 2005 (White patients, n = 2,994; Black patients, n = 480; P = .004). “And it became even more noticeable in the most recent decade,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “Furthermore, younger Black AML patients were found to have worse survival compared with younger White AML patients.”

Results from the second analysis of patients treated on Alliance protocols did not show any significant differences in early death rates (10% vs. 46%; P = .02) and complete remission rates (71% vs. 71%; P = 1.00). “While relapse rates were slightly higher in Black compared to White patients, this difference did not reach statistical significance,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “There was also no significant difference in the number of cycles of consolidation chemotherapy administered to these patients.”

However, both disease-free and overall survival were significantly worse for Black patients, suggesting that factors other than treatment selection were likely at play in influencing the survival disparity. The median disease-free survival for Black patients was 0.8 years, vs. 1.4 years for White patients (P = .02). Overall survival was 1.2 years vs. 1.8 years (P = .02).

Relapse rates were slightly higher in Black patients than in White patients, at 71% vs. 59%, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .14).
 

Differences in biomarkers

With regard to underlying molecular differences between Black and White patients, the investigators found that the most common mutations were in NPM1, FLT3-ITD, and DNM3TA. Mutations were detected in more than 20% of Black patients. Other commonly mutated genes were IDH2, NRAS, TET2, IDH1, and TP53, which were mutated in more than 10% of patients. “All of these genes are established commonly mutated genes in AML,” said Bhatnagar.

On univariable and multivariable outcome analyses, which were used to identify clinical or molecular features that had a bearing on outcome, FLT3-ITD and IDH2 mutations were the only mutations associated with a higher risk for death among Black patients.

“This is actually a very important finding, as both FLT3 and IDH2 are now targetable with small-molecule inhibitors,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “In addition, it is also worth noting that other gene mutations that have known prognostic significance in AML, such as NPM1, as well as RUNX1 and TP53, did not remain in the final statistical model.

“Importantly, our study provides powerful evidence that suggests differences in underlying disease biology between young Black and White AML patients, as evidenced by differences in the frequencies of recurrent gene mutations, “ she said.
 

Understudied disparities

Although the study showed that Black patients had worse outcomes, “surprisingly, the authors found these outcomes hold even when the patients are participating in clinical trials,” noted Elisa Weiss, PhD, senior vice president of education, services, and health research for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

“The study makes clear that the medical and science community need to do more to better understand the social, economic, environmental, and biological causes of these disparities,” she said in an interview. “In fact, the findings suggest that there are myriad complex and understudied causes of the identified disparities, and they are likely to lie at the intersection of all levels of the social ecology that impact an individual’s ability to access timely and unbiased care, maintain their mental and physical health, and receive needed social support and resources.”

She noted that the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has an Equity in Access research program that aims to “advance study of underlying causes of inequitable access to care and identify policies, strategies, and interventions that have the potential to reduce inequities and increase access to health care, services, and programs for blood cancer patients and survivors.”

The research was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, other institutions, and through several scholar awards. Dr. Bhatnagar has received advisory board honoraria from Novartis, Kite Pharma, Celgene, Astellas, and Cell Therapeutics. Dr. Weiss has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black race is the most important risk factor for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and is associated with poor survival, according to new findings.

Among patients with AML younger than 60 years, the rate of overall 3-year survival was significantly less among Black patients than White patients (34% vs. 43%). The risk for death was 27% higher for Black patients compared with White patients.

“Our study demonstrates the delicate interplay between a variety of factors that influence survival disparities, particularly for younger Black AML patients,” said first author Bhavana Bhatnagar, DO, of the Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “We were able to confirm the impact of socioeconomic factors while also demonstrating that being Black is, in and of itself, an independent poor prognostic variable for survival.”

She noted that the persistently poor outcomes of young Black patients that were seen despite similar treatments in clinical trials strongly suggest that additional factors have a bearing on their survival.

The findings of the study were presented during the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online this year. The study was simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery.

Racial disparities in cancer outcomes remain a challenge. The term “health disparities” describes the differences of health outcomes among different groups, said Chancellor Donald, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, who introduced the article at the meeting. “Racial health disparities usually result from an unequal distribution of power and resources, not genetics.

“The examination of health disparities is certainly a worthwhile endeavor,” he continued. “For generations, differences in key health outcomes have negatively impacted the quality of life and shortened the life span of countless individuals. As scientists, clinicians, and invested members of our shared society, we are obligated to obtain a profound understanding of the mechanisms and impact of this morbid reality.”
 

Black race a risk factor

For their study, Dr. Bhatnagar and colleagues conducted a nationwide population analysis using data from the Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute to identify 11,190 adults aged 18-60 years who were diagnosed with AML between 1986 and 2015.

To characterize molecular features, they conducted targeted sequencing of 81 genes in 1,339 patients with AML who were treated on frontline Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) protocols based on standard-intensity cytarabine/anthracycline induction followed by consolidation between 1986 and 2016. None of these patients received an allogeneic stem cell transplant when they achieved complete remission.

Although overall survival has improved during the past 3 decades, survival disparities between Black and White patients has widened over time (P < .001). The authors found a nonstatistically significant difference in survival between 1986 and 1995 (White patients, n = 1,365; Black patients, n = 160; P = .19). However, the difference was significant between 1996 and 2005 (White patients, n = 2,994; Black patients, n = 480; P = .004). “And it became even more noticeable in the most recent decade,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “Furthermore, younger Black AML patients were found to have worse survival compared with younger White AML patients.”

Results from the second analysis of patients treated on Alliance protocols did not show any significant differences in early death rates (10% vs. 46%; P = .02) and complete remission rates (71% vs. 71%; P = 1.00). “While relapse rates were slightly higher in Black compared to White patients, this difference did not reach statistical significance,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “There was also no significant difference in the number of cycles of consolidation chemotherapy administered to these patients.”

However, both disease-free and overall survival were significantly worse for Black patients, suggesting that factors other than treatment selection were likely at play in influencing the survival disparity. The median disease-free survival for Black patients was 0.8 years, vs. 1.4 years for White patients (P = .02). Overall survival was 1.2 years vs. 1.8 years (P = .02).

Relapse rates were slightly higher in Black patients than in White patients, at 71% vs. 59%, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .14).
 

Differences in biomarkers

With regard to underlying molecular differences between Black and White patients, the investigators found that the most common mutations were in NPM1, FLT3-ITD, and DNM3TA. Mutations were detected in more than 20% of Black patients. Other commonly mutated genes were IDH2, NRAS, TET2, IDH1, and TP53, which were mutated in more than 10% of patients. “All of these genes are established commonly mutated genes in AML,” said Bhatnagar.

On univariable and multivariable outcome analyses, which were used to identify clinical or molecular features that had a bearing on outcome, FLT3-ITD and IDH2 mutations were the only mutations associated with a higher risk for death among Black patients.

“This is actually a very important finding, as both FLT3 and IDH2 are now targetable with small-molecule inhibitors,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “In addition, it is also worth noting that other gene mutations that have known prognostic significance in AML, such as NPM1, as well as RUNX1 and TP53, did not remain in the final statistical model.

“Importantly, our study provides powerful evidence that suggests differences in underlying disease biology between young Black and White AML patients, as evidenced by differences in the frequencies of recurrent gene mutations, “ she said.
 

Understudied disparities

Although the study showed that Black patients had worse outcomes, “surprisingly, the authors found these outcomes hold even when the patients are participating in clinical trials,” noted Elisa Weiss, PhD, senior vice president of education, services, and health research for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

“The study makes clear that the medical and science community need to do more to better understand the social, economic, environmental, and biological causes of these disparities,” she said in an interview. “In fact, the findings suggest that there are myriad complex and understudied causes of the identified disparities, and they are likely to lie at the intersection of all levels of the social ecology that impact an individual’s ability to access timely and unbiased care, maintain their mental and physical health, and receive needed social support and resources.”

She noted that the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has an Equity in Access research program that aims to “advance study of underlying causes of inequitable access to care and identify policies, strategies, and interventions that have the potential to reduce inequities and increase access to health care, services, and programs for blood cancer patients and survivors.”

The research was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, other institutions, and through several scholar awards. Dr. Bhatnagar has received advisory board honoraria from Novartis, Kite Pharma, Celgene, Astellas, and Cell Therapeutics. Dr. Weiss has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black race is the most important risk factor for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and is associated with poor survival, according to new findings.

Among patients with AML younger than 60 years, the rate of overall 3-year survival was significantly less among Black patients than White patients (34% vs. 43%). The risk for death was 27% higher for Black patients compared with White patients.

“Our study demonstrates the delicate interplay between a variety of factors that influence survival disparities, particularly for younger Black AML patients,” said first author Bhavana Bhatnagar, DO, of the Ohio State University’s Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus. “We were able to confirm the impact of socioeconomic factors while also demonstrating that being Black is, in and of itself, an independent poor prognostic variable for survival.”

She noted that the persistently poor outcomes of young Black patients that were seen despite similar treatments in clinical trials strongly suggest that additional factors have a bearing on their survival.

The findings of the study were presented during the plenary session of the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online this year. The study was simultaneously published in Cancer Discovery.

Racial disparities in cancer outcomes remain a challenge. The term “health disparities” describes the differences of health outcomes among different groups, said Chancellor Donald, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, who introduced the article at the meeting. “Racial health disparities usually result from an unequal distribution of power and resources, not genetics.

“The examination of health disparities is certainly a worthwhile endeavor,” he continued. “For generations, differences in key health outcomes have negatively impacted the quality of life and shortened the life span of countless individuals. As scientists, clinicians, and invested members of our shared society, we are obligated to obtain a profound understanding of the mechanisms and impact of this morbid reality.”
 

Black race a risk factor

For their study, Dr. Bhatnagar and colleagues conducted a nationwide population analysis using data from the Surveillance Epidemiology End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute to identify 11,190 adults aged 18-60 years who were diagnosed with AML between 1986 and 2015.

To characterize molecular features, they conducted targeted sequencing of 81 genes in 1,339 patients with AML who were treated on frontline Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) protocols based on standard-intensity cytarabine/anthracycline induction followed by consolidation between 1986 and 2016. None of these patients received an allogeneic stem cell transplant when they achieved complete remission.

Although overall survival has improved during the past 3 decades, survival disparities between Black and White patients has widened over time (P < .001). The authors found a nonstatistically significant difference in survival between 1986 and 1995 (White patients, n = 1,365; Black patients, n = 160; P = .19). However, the difference was significant between 1996 and 2005 (White patients, n = 2,994; Black patients, n = 480; P = .004). “And it became even more noticeable in the most recent decade,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “Furthermore, younger Black AML patients were found to have worse survival compared with younger White AML patients.”

Results from the second analysis of patients treated on Alliance protocols did not show any significant differences in early death rates (10% vs. 46%; P = .02) and complete remission rates (71% vs. 71%; P = 1.00). “While relapse rates were slightly higher in Black compared to White patients, this difference did not reach statistical significance,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “There was also no significant difference in the number of cycles of consolidation chemotherapy administered to these patients.”

However, both disease-free and overall survival were significantly worse for Black patients, suggesting that factors other than treatment selection were likely at play in influencing the survival disparity. The median disease-free survival for Black patients was 0.8 years, vs. 1.4 years for White patients (P = .02). Overall survival was 1.2 years vs. 1.8 years (P = .02).

Relapse rates were slightly higher in Black patients than in White patients, at 71% vs. 59%, but this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .14).
 

Differences in biomarkers

With regard to underlying molecular differences between Black and White patients, the investigators found that the most common mutations were in NPM1, FLT3-ITD, and DNM3TA. Mutations were detected in more than 20% of Black patients. Other commonly mutated genes were IDH2, NRAS, TET2, IDH1, and TP53, which were mutated in more than 10% of patients. “All of these genes are established commonly mutated genes in AML,” said Bhatnagar.

On univariable and multivariable outcome analyses, which were used to identify clinical or molecular features that had a bearing on outcome, FLT3-ITD and IDH2 mutations were the only mutations associated with a higher risk for death among Black patients.

“This is actually a very important finding, as both FLT3 and IDH2 are now targetable with small-molecule inhibitors,” said Dr. Bhatnagar. “In addition, it is also worth noting that other gene mutations that have known prognostic significance in AML, such as NPM1, as well as RUNX1 and TP53, did not remain in the final statistical model.

“Importantly, our study provides powerful evidence that suggests differences in underlying disease biology between young Black and White AML patients, as evidenced by differences in the frequencies of recurrent gene mutations, “ she said.
 

Understudied disparities

Although the study showed that Black patients had worse outcomes, “surprisingly, the authors found these outcomes hold even when the patients are participating in clinical trials,” noted Elisa Weiss, PhD, senior vice president of education, services, and health research for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.

“The study makes clear that the medical and science community need to do more to better understand the social, economic, environmental, and biological causes of these disparities,” she said in an interview. “In fact, the findings suggest that there are myriad complex and understudied causes of the identified disparities, and they are likely to lie at the intersection of all levels of the social ecology that impact an individual’s ability to access timely and unbiased care, maintain their mental and physical health, and receive needed social support and resources.”

She noted that the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society has an Equity in Access research program that aims to “advance study of underlying causes of inequitable access to care and identify policies, strategies, and interventions that have the potential to reduce inequities and increase access to health care, services, and programs for blood cancer patients and survivors.”

The research was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, other institutions, and through several scholar awards. Dr. Bhatnagar has received advisory board honoraria from Novartis, Kite Pharma, Celgene, Astellas, and Cell Therapeutics. Dr. Weiss has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An analysis of nearly 29,000 U.S. women with early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) showed that physical inactivity and fertility correlated modestly with living in “hot spots,” or counties with high early-onset CRC mortality rates among women.

Approximately one-third of the variation in early-onset CRC survival among women was accounted for by differences in individual- or community-level features.

Andreana N. Holowatyj, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues reported these findings in Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.

Dr. Holowatyj and colleagues noted that prior studies have linked health behaviors with an increased risk of early-onset CRC among women. However, the impact of health behaviors on outcomes of early-onset CRC is unknown.

The researchers hypothesized that biological-, individual-, and community-level factors may be contributing to known sex-specific differences in CRC outcomes and geographic variations in survival by sex.
 

Hot spot counties with high mortality

The researchers identified geographic hot spots using three geospatial autocorrelation approaches with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention national

mortality data. The team also analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program on 28,790 women (aged 15-49 years) diagnosed with CRC during 1999-2016.

Of the 3,108 counties in the contiguous United States, 191 were identified as hot spots. Among these, 101 (52.9%) were located in the South.

Earlier research had shown a predominance of hot spots for early-onset CRC mortality among both men and women in the South.

However, the current study of women showed that almost half of these counties were located in the Midwest and the Northeast as well as the South.

Also in the current analysis, about one in every seven women (13.7%) with early-onset CRC resided in hot spot counties.

Race/ethnicity, stage at diagnosis, histopathology, and receipt of first-course therapies also differed significantly (P ≤ .0001) between women residing in hot spot versus non–hot spot counties.

Non-Hispanic Black patients, for example, accounted for 23.7% of early-onset CRC cases in hot spot counties, as compared with 14.3% in non–hot spot counties (P < .0001). The county-level proportion of non-Hispanic Black patients also modestly correlated with hot spot residence (r_s = .26; P < .0001).

Race and ethnicity accounted for less than 0.5% of the variation in early-onset CRC survival among women in non–hot spot counties. In hot spot counties, however, this factor explained 1.4% of the variation in early-onset CRC-specific survival among women.
 

Inactivity correlates with hot spot residence

Dr. Holowatyj and colleagues also identified physical inactivity and lower fertility as county-level factors modestly correlated with hot spot residence (r_s = .21, r_s = –.23: P < .01).

Nearly a quarter of adults living in hot spot counties reported no physical activity during their leisure time (24.1% vs. 21.7% in non–hot spot counties; P < .01).

The rate of live births in the last year among women aged 15-50 years was lower in hot spot counties than in non–hot spot counties (4.9% vs. 5.4%; P < .01).

Individual- and community-level features overall accounted for different proportions of variance in early-onset CRC survival among women residing in hot spot counties (33.8%) versus non–hot spot counties (34.1%).

In addition to race and ethnicity, age at diagnosis, tumor histology, county-level proportions of the non-Hispanic Black population, women with a live birth in the last year, and annual household income of less than $20,000 all explained greater variance in CRC survival in young women in hot spot counties versus non–hot spot counties.
 

Keep CRC in differential diagnosis

“These individual- and community-level feature differences between hot spot and non–hot spot counties illustrate the importance of understanding how these factors may be contributing to early-onset CRC mortality among women – particularly in hot spot counties,” Dr. Holowatyj said in an interview. “They may provide us with key clues for developing effective strategies to reduce the burden of CRC in young women across the United States.

“Every primary care physician and gastroenterologist, particularly in hot spot counties, should keep CRC in their differential diagnosis, particularly if a patient is presenting with typical signs and symptoms, even if they are not yet of screening age. Early-stage diagnosis increases survival odds because the cancer may be easier to treat.”

Health professionals can also encourage physical activity and a healthy lifestyle, she added.

The authors declared no competing interests. Their research was funded by grants from the federal government and foundations.

SOURCE: Holowatyj AN et al. Clin and Transl Gastroenterol. 2020;11:e00266.

An analysis of nearly 29,000 U.S. women with early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) showed that physical inactivity and fertility correlated modestly with living in “hot spots,” or counties with high early-onset CRC mortality rates among women.

Approximately one-third of the variation in early-onset CRC survival among women was accounted for by differences in individual- or community-level features.

Andreana N. Holowatyj, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues reported these findings in Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.

Dr. Holowatyj and colleagues noted that prior studies have linked health behaviors with an increased risk of early-onset CRC among women. However, the impact of health behaviors on outcomes of early-onset CRC is unknown.

The researchers hypothesized that biological-, individual-, and community-level factors may be contributing to known sex-specific differences in CRC outcomes and geographic variations in survival by sex.
 

Hot spot counties with high mortality

The researchers identified geographic hot spots using three geospatial autocorrelation approaches with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention national

mortality data. The team also analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program on 28,790 women (aged 15-49 years) diagnosed with CRC during 1999-2016.

Of the 3,108 counties in the contiguous United States, 191 were identified as hot spots. Among these, 101 (52.9%) were located in the South.

Earlier research had shown a predominance of hot spots for early-onset CRC mortality among both men and women in the South.

However, the current study of women showed that almost half of these counties were located in the Midwest and the Northeast as well as the South.

Also in the current analysis, about one in every seven women (13.7%) with early-onset CRC resided in hot spot counties.

Race/ethnicity, stage at diagnosis, histopathology, and receipt of first-course therapies also differed significantly (P ≤ .0001) between women residing in hot spot versus non–hot spot counties.

Non-Hispanic Black patients, for example, accounted for 23.7% of early-onset CRC cases in hot spot counties, as compared with 14.3% in non–hot spot counties (P < .0001). The county-level proportion of non-Hispanic Black patients also modestly correlated with hot spot residence (r_s = .26; P < .0001).

Race and ethnicity accounted for less than 0.5% of the variation in early-onset CRC survival among women in non–hot spot counties. In hot spot counties, however, this factor explained 1.4% of the variation in early-onset CRC-specific survival among women.
 

Inactivity correlates with hot spot residence

Dr. Holowatyj and colleagues also identified physical inactivity and lower fertility as county-level factors modestly correlated with hot spot residence (r_s = .21, r_s = –.23: P < .01).

Nearly a quarter of adults living in hot spot counties reported no physical activity during their leisure time (24.1% vs. 21.7% in non–hot spot counties; P < .01).

The rate of live births in the last year among women aged 15-50 years was lower in hot spot counties than in non–hot spot counties (4.9% vs. 5.4%; P < .01).

Individual- and community-level features overall accounted for different proportions of variance in early-onset CRC survival among women residing in hot spot counties (33.8%) versus non–hot spot counties (34.1%).

In addition to race and ethnicity, age at diagnosis, tumor histology, county-level proportions of the non-Hispanic Black population, women with a live birth in the last year, and annual household income of less than $20,000 all explained greater variance in CRC survival in young women in hot spot counties versus non–hot spot counties.
 

Keep CRC in differential diagnosis

“These individual- and community-level feature differences between hot spot and non–hot spot counties illustrate the importance of understanding how these factors may be contributing to early-onset CRC mortality among women – particularly in hot spot counties,” Dr. Holowatyj said in an interview. “They may provide us with key clues for developing effective strategies to reduce the burden of CRC in young women across the United States.

“Every primary care physician and gastroenterologist, particularly in hot spot counties, should keep CRC in their differential diagnosis, particularly if a patient is presenting with typical signs and symptoms, even if they are not yet of screening age. Early-stage diagnosis increases survival odds because the cancer may be easier to treat.”

Health professionals can also encourage physical activity and a healthy lifestyle, she added.

The authors declared no competing interests. Their research was funded by grants from the federal government and foundations.

SOURCE: Holowatyj AN et al. Clin and Transl Gastroenterol. 2020;11:e00266.

An analysis of nearly 29,000 U.S. women with early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) showed that physical inactivity and fertility correlated modestly with living in “hot spots,” or counties with high early-onset CRC mortality rates among women.

Approximately one-third of the variation in early-onset CRC survival among women was accounted for by differences in individual- or community-level features.

Andreana N. Holowatyj, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues reported these findings in Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.

Dr. Holowatyj and colleagues noted that prior studies have linked health behaviors with an increased risk of early-onset CRC among women. However, the impact of health behaviors on outcomes of early-onset CRC is unknown.

The researchers hypothesized that biological-, individual-, and community-level factors may be contributing to known sex-specific differences in CRC outcomes and geographic variations in survival by sex.
 

Hot spot counties with high mortality

The researchers identified geographic hot spots using three geospatial autocorrelation approaches with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention national

mortality data. The team also analyzed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program on 28,790 women (aged 15-49 years) diagnosed with CRC during 1999-2016.

Of the 3,108 counties in the contiguous United States, 191 were identified as hot spots. Among these, 101 (52.9%) were located in the South.

Earlier research had shown a predominance of hot spots for early-onset CRC mortality among both men and women in the South.

However, the current study of women showed that almost half of these counties were located in the Midwest and the Northeast as well as the South.

Also in the current analysis, about one in every seven women (13.7%) with early-onset CRC resided in hot spot counties.

Race/ethnicity, stage at diagnosis, histopathology, and receipt of first-course therapies also differed significantly (P ≤ .0001) between women residing in hot spot versus non–hot spot counties.

Non-Hispanic Black patients, for example, accounted for 23.7% of early-onset CRC cases in hot spot counties, as compared with 14.3% in non–hot spot counties (P < .0001). The county-level proportion of non-Hispanic Black patients also modestly correlated with hot spot residence (r_s = .26; P < .0001).

Race and ethnicity accounted for less than 0.5% of the variation in early-onset CRC survival among women in non–hot spot counties. In hot spot counties, however, this factor explained 1.4% of the variation in early-onset CRC-specific survival among women.
 

Inactivity correlates with hot spot residence

Dr. Holowatyj and colleagues also identified physical inactivity and lower fertility as county-level factors modestly correlated with hot spot residence (r_s = .21, r_s = –.23: P < .01).

Nearly a quarter of adults living in hot spot counties reported no physical activity during their leisure time (24.1% vs. 21.7% in non–hot spot counties; P < .01).

The rate of live births in the last year among women aged 15-50 years was lower in hot spot counties than in non–hot spot counties (4.9% vs. 5.4%; P < .01).

Individual- and community-level features overall accounted for different proportions of variance in early-onset CRC survival among women residing in hot spot counties (33.8%) versus non–hot spot counties (34.1%).

In addition to race and ethnicity, age at diagnosis, tumor histology, county-level proportions of the non-Hispanic Black population, women with a live birth in the last year, and annual household income of less than $20,000 all explained greater variance in CRC survival in young women in hot spot counties versus non–hot spot counties.
 

Keep CRC in differential diagnosis

“These individual- and community-level feature differences between hot spot and non–hot spot counties illustrate the importance of understanding how these factors may be contributing to early-onset CRC mortality among women – particularly in hot spot counties,” Dr. Holowatyj said in an interview. “They may provide us with key clues for developing effective strategies to reduce the burden of CRC in young women across the United States.

“Every primary care physician and gastroenterologist, particularly in hot spot counties, should keep CRC in their differential diagnosis, particularly if a patient is presenting with typical signs and symptoms, even if they are not yet of screening age. Early-stage diagnosis increases survival odds because the cancer may be easier to treat.”

Health professionals can also encourage physical activity and a healthy lifestyle, she added.

The authors declared no competing interests. Their research was funded by grants from the federal government and foundations.

SOURCE: Holowatyj AN et al. Clin and Transl Gastroenterol. 2020;11:e00266.

More than one in eight women who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction for breast cancer treatment or prophylaxis become persistent users of controlled substances thereafter, according to a retrospective cohort study reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

After their surgery, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients become new persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic–naive patients become new persistent users of sedative-hypnotics. Risk factors for persistent substance use included younger age, a breast cancer diagnosis, and chemotherapy.

“As the opioid epidemic in the United States continues, the rate of opioid dependence in the cancer population continues to increase as well,” study investigator Jacob Cogan, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, said during a press conference.

“The perioperative period is one of high risk for cancer patients, with up to 10% becoming new persistent opioid users after cancer-related surgery. The rates surrounding mastectomy and reconstruction, however, are unknown. Another class of controlled substances worth our attention are the sedative-hypnotics. Despite the high rates of psychiatric disorders in the cancer population, there is little research into the rates of persistent sedative-hypnotic use in these patients.”

With this in mind, Dr. Cogan and colleagues analyzed MarketScan health care claims data for patients who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction (whether therapeutic or prophylactic) between 2008 and 2017.

The researchers then identified prescription claims for opioids and sedative-hypnotics during three periods:

• Preoperative period – 365 days to 31 days before surgery.
• Perioperative period – 31 days before to 90 days after surgery.
• Postoperative period – 90 days to 365 days after surgery.

‘Striking’ results

Analyses were based on 25,270 women who were not prior users of opioids and 27,651 women who were not prior users of sedative-hypnotics.

Women were considered new persistent substance users if they had no use in the preoperative period but filled at least one prescription in the perioperative period and at least two in the postoperative period.

Overall, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients became persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic-naive patients became persistent sedative-hypnotic users after their mastectomy and reconstruction.

Proportions of substance use were even higher, 17.5% for opioids and 17.0% for sedative-hypnotics, after excluding women who did not receive or fill a perioperative prescription.

In multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent opioid users if they had Medicaid insurance (odds ratio, 2.31), had a breast cancer diagnosis vs a prophylactic indication (OR, 1.44), received chemotherapy (OR, 1.33), and were 50-64 years of age (OR, 1.29) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.27), compared with 65 years or older.

Similarly, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent sedative-hypnotic users if they received chemotherapy (OR, 2.24), had Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.85), had a breast cancer diagnosis (OR, 1.79), and were 50 to 64 years (OR, 1.65) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.79).

Finally, patients’ likelihood of new persistent use increased with their number of risk factors. For persistent opioid use, the odds ratio rose from 2.27 in patients with two risk factors to 6.34 in those with five risk factors. For persistent sedative-hypnotic use, the odds ratio rose from 2.55 to 7.71, respectively.

The observed incidences of new persistent substance use in this patient population are “striking,” according to Dr. Cogan. Although the identified risk factors can help providers spot patients who should be monitored more closely, a proactive, systematic approach to postoperative follow-up for all patients is likely needed.

“When you are seeing patients in follow-up, this is something that you might want to explicitly ask about, for example, and not just assume that the postoperative opioids were taken and then disposed of,” Dr. Cogan recommended. “Ask them, ‘Are you still taking opioids, are you still taking your Ambien or whatever medication you were prescribed?’ That’s something to diligently follow up on and make sure the drug is disposed of, or if it somebody is still taking it, refer them for the appropriate services.”

In addition, patients should be encouraged to use over-the-counter medications as much as possible, he advised.
 

Prescribing: It’s complicated

“I wonder if perhaps we should not be giving opioids at all to certain patients. For example, a mastectomy and implant reconstruction, oftentimes, surprisingly, that’s not a terribly painful procedure. But a TRAM [transverse rectus abdominis] flap or abdominal flap, that really is,” commented press conference comoderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

“I’ve been surprised that a lot of my patients get the prescription, but they don’t even use the pills, and I wonder if the prescription is given just so that we’re not bothered at nighttime by somebody calling with pain,” Dr. Osbourne added.

Prescribing opioids for postoperative pain is complicated, Dr. Cogan said, noting that the study did not assess the specific type of reconstruction patients had.

“You don’t want people in pain. Even if they need just one or two pills, it’s still reasonable for them to have it, and we certainly don’t want to imply from our study that people shouldn’t be getting these prescriptions if they need them,” Dr. Cogan elaborated. “But once patients have them, don’t just leave them there in their home because other studies have shown that that’s when people really get addicted to these medications, when they use them later on for other reasons, or they keep using them just because they have them around.”

The risk for persistent use of controlled substances “is something that all physicians need to be aware of for their patients. This is something that we are missing,” maintained press conference comoderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, DSc, of UT Health San Antonio.

“It’s easy to just give a prescription instead of arguing with a patient about why you are not going to give them a prescription,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “And ultimately ... pain is subjective. If a patient tells you they are in pain, you are, quote-endquote, a bad physician if you tell them they should not be in pain.”

Courtesy The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

“We need to focus on other ways to deal with the pain, like physical therapy, sending patients to physical medicine and rehab physicians who are trained to help with symptoms from the surgery, with range of motion and all that; that can help with pain,” she recommended. “It’s much harder to do that, right, than to send a prescription in for a narcotic? But that easy answer is always the worst answer.”

This study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cogan declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Osborne disclosed relationships with Wolters Kluwer, Lilly, Tolmar, and GeneTex. Dr. Kaklamani disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Celgene, Celldex, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, Genomic Health, Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Cogan JC et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-08.

More than one in eight women who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction for breast cancer treatment or prophylaxis become persistent users of controlled substances thereafter, according to a retrospective cohort study reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

After their surgery, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients become new persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic–naive patients become new persistent users of sedative-hypnotics. Risk factors for persistent substance use included younger age, a breast cancer diagnosis, and chemotherapy.

“As the opioid epidemic in the United States continues, the rate of opioid dependence in the cancer population continues to increase as well,” study investigator Jacob Cogan, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, said during a press conference.

“The perioperative period is one of high risk for cancer patients, with up to 10% becoming new persistent opioid users after cancer-related surgery. The rates surrounding mastectomy and reconstruction, however, are unknown. Another class of controlled substances worth our attention are the sedative-hypnotics. Despite the high rates of psychiatric disorders in the cancer population, there is little research into the rates of persistent sedative-hypnotic use in these patients.”

With this in mind, Dr. Cogan and colleagues analyzed MarketScan health care claims data for patients who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction (whether therapeutic or prophylactic) between 2008 and 2017.

The researchers then identified prescription claims for opioids and sedative-hypnotics during three periods:

• Preoperative period – 365 days to 31 days before surgery.
• Perioperative period – 31 days before to 90 days after surgery.
• Postoperative period – 90 days to 365 days after surgery.

‘Striking’ results

Analyses were based on 25,270 women who were not prior users of opioids and 27,651 women who were not prior users of sedative-hypnotics.

Women were considered new persistent substance users if they had no use in the preoperative period but filled at least one prescription in the perioperative period and at least two in the postoperative period.

Overall, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients became persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic-naive patients became persistent sedative-hypnotic users after their mastectomy and reconstruction.

Proportions of substance use were even higher, 17.5% for opioids and 17.0% for sedative-hypnotics, after excluding women who did not receive or fill a perioperative prescription.

In multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent opioid users if they had Medicaid insurance (odds ratio, 2.31), had a breast cancer diagnosis vs a prophylactic indication (OR, 1.44), received chemotherapy (OR, 1.33), and were 50-64 years of age (OR, 1.29) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.27), compared with 65 years or older.

Similarly, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent sedative-hypnotic users if they received chemotherapy (OR, 2.24), had Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.85), had a breast cancer diagnosis (OR, 1.79), and were 50 to 64 years (OR, 1.65) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.79).

Finally, patients’ likelihood of new persistent use increased with their number of risk factors. For persistent opioid use, the odds ratio rose from 2.27 in patients with two risk factors to 6.34 in those with five risk factors. For persistent sedative-hypnotic use, the odds ratio rose from 2.55 to 7.71, respectively.

The observed incidences of new persistent substance use in this patient population are “striking,” according to Dr. Cogan. Although the identified risk factors can help providers spot patients who should be monitored more closely, a proactive, systematic approach to postoperative follow-up for all patients is likely needed.

“When you are seeing patients in follow-up, this is something that you might want to explicitly ask about, for example, and not just assume that the postoperative opioids were taken and then disposed of,” Dr. Cogan recommended. “Ask them, ‘Are you still taking opioids, are you still taking your Ambien or whatever medication you were prescribed?’ That’s something to diligently follow up on and make sure the drug is disposed of, or if it somebody is still taking it, refer them for the appropriate services.”

In addition, patients should be encouraged to use over-the-counter medications as much as possible, he advised.
 

Prescribing: It’s complicated

“I wonder if perhaps we should not be giving opioids at all to certain patients. For example, a mastectomy and implant reconstruction, oftentimes, surprisingly, that’s not a terribly painful procedure. But a TRAM [transverse rectus abdominis] flap or abdominal flap, that really is,” commented press conference comoderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

“I’ve been surprised that a lot of my patients get the prescription, but they don’t even use the pills, and I wonder if the prescription is given just so that we’re not bothered at nighttime by somebody calling with pain,” Dr. Osbourne added.

Prescribing opioids for postoperative pain is complicated, Dr. Cogan said, noting that the study did not assess the specific type of reconstruction patients had.

“You don’t want people in pain. Even if they need just one or two pills, it’s still reasonable for them to have it, and we certainly don’t want to imply from our study that people shouldn’t be getting these prescriptions if they need them,” Dr. Cogan elaborated. “But once patients have them, don’t just leave them there in their home because other studies have shown that that’s when people really get addicted to these medications, when they use them later on for other reasons, or they keep using them just because they have them around.”

The risk for persistent use of controlled substances “is something that all physicians need to be aware of for their patients. This is something that we are missing,” maintained press conference comoderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, DSc, of UT Health San Antonio.

“It’s easy to just give a prescription instead of arguing with a patient about why you are not going to give them a prescription,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “And ultimately ... pain is subjective. If a patient tells you they are in pain, you are, quote-endquote, a bad physician if you tell them they should not be in pain.”

Courtesy The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

“We need to focus on other ways to deal with the pain, like physical therapy, sending patients to physical medicine and rehab physicians who are trained to help with symptoms from the surgery, with range of motion and all that; that can help with pain,” she recommended. “It’s much harder to do that, right, than to send a prescription in for a narcotic? But that easy answer is always the worst answer.”

This study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cogan declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Osborne disclosed relationships with Wolters Kluwer, Lilly, Tolmar, and GeneTex. Dr. Kaklamani disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Celgene, Celldex, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, Genomic Health, Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Cogan JC et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-08.

More than one in eight women who undergo mastectomy with reconstruction for breast cancer treatment or prophylaxis become persistent users of controlled substances thereafter, according to a retrospective cohort study reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

After their surgery, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients become new persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic–naive patients become new persistent users of sedative-hypnotics. Risk factors for persistent substance use included younger age, a breast cancer diagnosis, and chemotherapy.

“As the opioid epidemic in the United States continues, the rate of opioid dependence in the cancer population continues to increase as well,” study investigator Jacob Cogan, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, said during a press conference.

“The perioperative period is one of high risk for cancer patients, with up to 10% becoming new persistent opioid users after cancer-related surgery. The rates surrounding mastectomy and reconstruction, however, are unknown. Another class of controlled substances worth our attention are the sedative-hypnotics. Despite the high rates of psychiatric disorders in the cancer population, there is little research into the rates of persistent sedative-hypnotic use in these patients.”

With this in mind, Dr. Cogan and colleagues analyzed MarketScan health care claims data for patients who underwent mastectomy and reconstruction (whether therapeutic or prophylactic) between 2008 and 2017.

The researchers then identified prescription claims for opioids and sedative-hypnotics during three periods:

• Preoperative period – 365 days to 31 days before surgery.
• Perioperative period – 31 days before to 90 days after surgery.
• Postoperative period – 90 days to 365 days after surgery.

‘Striking’ results

Analyses were based on 25,270 women who were not prior users of opioids and 27,651 women who were not prior users of sedative-hypnotics.

Women were considered new persistent substance users if they had no use in the preoperative period but filled at least one prescription in the perioperative period and at least two in the postoperative period.

Overall, 13.1% of opioid-naive patients became persistent opioid users, and 6.6% of sedative-hypnotic-naive patients became persistent sedative-hypnotic users after their mastectomy and reconstruction.

Proportions of substance use were even higher, 17.5% for opioids and 17.0% for sedative-hypnotics, after excluding women who did not receive or fill a perioperative prescription.

In multivariate analysis, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent opioid users if they had Medicaid insurance (odds ratio, 2.31), had a breast cancer diagnosis vs a prophylactic indication (OR, 1.44), received chemotherapy (OR, 1.33), and were 50-64 years of age (OR, 1.29) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.27), compared with 65 years or older.

Similarly, patients were significantly more likely to become new persistent sedative-hypnotic users if they received chemotherapy (OR, 2.24), had Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.85), had a breast cancer diagnosis (OR, 1.79), and were 50 to 64 years (OR, 1.65) or 49 years or younger (OR, 1.79).

Finally, patients’ likelihood of new persistent use increased with their number of risk factors. For persistent opioid use, the odds ratio rose from 2.27 in patients with two risk factors to 6.34 in those with five risk factors. For persistent sedative-hypnotic use, the odds ratio rose from 2.55 to 7.71, respectively.

The observed incidences of new persistent substance use in this patient population are “striking,” according to Dr. Cogan. Although the identified risk factors can help providers spot patients who should be monitored more closely, a proactive, systematic approach to postoperative follow-up for all patients is likely needed.

“When you are seeing patients in follow-up, this is something that you might want to explicitly ask about, for example, and not just assume that the postoperative opioids were taken and then disposed of,” Dr. Cogan recommended. “Ask them, ‘Are you still taking opioids, are you still taking your Ambien or whatever medication you were prescribed?’ That’s something to diligently follow up on and make sure the drug is disposed of, or if it somebody is still taking it, refer them for the appropriate services.”

In addition, patients should be encouraged to use over-the-counter medications as much as possible, he advised.
 

Prescribing: It’s complicated

“I wonder if perhaps we should not be giving opioids at all to certain patients. For example, a mastectomy and implant reconstruction, oftentimes, surprisingly, that’s not a terribly painful procedure. But a TRAM [transverse rectus abdominis] flap or abdominal flap, that really is,” commented press conference comoderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

“I’ve been surprised that a lot of my patients get the prescription, but they don’t even use the pills, and I wonder if the prescription is given just so that we’re not bothered at nighttime by somebody calling with pain,” Dr. Osbourne added.

Prescribing opioids for postoperative pain is complicated, Dr. Cogan said, noting that the study did not assess the specific type of reconstruction patients had.

“You don’t want people in pain. Even if they need just one or two pills, it’s still reasonable for them to have it, and we certainly don’t want to imply from our study that people shouldn’t be getting these prescriptions if they need them,” Dr. Cogan elaborated. “But once patients have them, don’t just leave them there in their home because other studies have shown that that’s when people really get addicted to these medications, when they use them later on for other reasons, or they keep using them just because they have them around.”

The risk for persistent use of controlled substances “is something that all physicians need to be aware of for their patients. This is something that we are missing,” maintained press conference comoderator Virginia Kaklamani, MD, DSc, of UT Health San Antonio.

“It’s easy to just give a prescription instead of arguing with a patient about why you are not going to give them a prescription,” Dr. Kaklamani said. “And ultimately ... pain is subjective. If a patient tells you they are in pain, you are, quote-endquote, a bad physician if you tell them they should not be in pain.”

Courtesy The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

“We need to focus on other ways to deal with the pain, like physical therapy, sending patients to physical medicine and rehab physicians who are trained to help with symptoms from the surgery, with range of motion and all that; that can help with pain,” she recommended. “It’s much harder to do that, right, than to send a prescription in for a narcotic? But that easy answer is always the worst answer.”

This study was funded by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Cogan declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Osborne disclosed relationships with Wolters Kluwer, Lilly, Tolmar, and GeneTex. Dr. Kaklamani disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Celgene, Celldex, Daiichi, Eisai, Genentech, Genomic Health, Immunomedics, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, and Seattle Genetics.

SOURCE: Cogan JC et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-08.

The cognitive and emotional status of children with sickle cell disease (SCD) appears to have a significant effect on how they cope with pain and use health care resources, investigators have found.

Results of a retrospective study of 112 children and adolescents with SCD, the majority of whom had sickle cell anemia, showed that ED visits and hospitalizations were significantly lower among children with SCD who performed better on an attention task, as well as those who were better able to cope emotionally with having SCD and pain, reported Zaria Williams, a second-year medical student at Howard University, Washington, and colleagues.

“Since I started learning more about sickle cell disease, I’ve been very concerned about the great disease burden that this condition can place on pediatric patients, particularly those who suffer from pain,” Ms. Williams said in an oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Although many children and adolescents with SCD can have their pain effectively managed at home with opioids and other medications, some require ED visits and potentially hospitalizations for pain management.

“There is great variability in health care utilization among patients with sickle cell disease, with some having to come to the ED and be admit to the hospital more than others. In searching for reasons why this might be the case, we thought about cognitive function and emotional differences between children with sickle cell disease as potentially affecting disease management,” she said.
 

Anxiety and catastrophizing

Children with SCD are known to be susceptible to affective comorbidities such as anxiety and catastrophizing, and to conditions that have the potential for deleterious effects on executive function, attention, and working memory. To determine whether cognitive and emotional factors affect the disease self-management in children and adolescents with SCD, Ms. Williams and coinvestigators looked at a cohort of 112 SCD patients aged 7-16 years treated at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C.

The patients had participated in a previous pilot study of computerized working memory training. The authors reviewed charts for data on health care utilization, focusing on ED visits and hospitalization for pain 1 and 3 years after enrollment in the study.

They collected data on SCD genotype, disease-related variables, psychosocial information, and measures of cognition and emotion from the dataset. The information included socioeconomic status, parent education level, household income, and number of adults in the household.

Cognitive measures included the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children full scale IQ, and the Cogstate computerized cognitive assessment system, which measures attention, executive function, and working memory.

Emotional measures were captured from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Sickle Cell Disease module, including questions about worrying and emotions such as anger regarding SCD and pain.

The mean age of participants was 10.61 years. Of the 112 children/adolescents in the study, 65 (58%) were female, and 83 (74%) had sickle cell anemia (either HbSS or HbSβ0 thalassemia).

The participants had a median number of ED visits for pain of one within a year of enrollment, and a median of three within 3 years of enrollment,

The median number of hospital admissions for pain was zero and one, respectively.
 

Attention, emotions linked to higher use

Factors significantly associated with ED visits for pain within the first year were higher (worse) scores for attention (P = .001) and self-reported emotion (P = .049). ED visits within 3 years of enrollment were associated with attention (P = .003) and working memory (P = .039).

Similarly, hospitalizations for pain within the first year were significantly associated with worse attention scores (P = .009) and child-reported emotion (P = .013). Hospitalizations for pain within 3 years of enrollment were also significantly associated with attention deficits (P = .006) and with worse emotional function as reported by a parent (P = .020).

There was no significant effect of SCD genotype or socioeconomic status on either pain-related ED visits or hospitalizations, however.

The investigators theorized that poor attention may make it difficult to distract children from focusing on their pain, and could also hamper disease self-management strategies such as medication adherence and avoiding pain triggers.
 

Age-related differences?

In the question-and-answer session following her presentation, comoderator Susanna A Curtis, MD, from Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, commented that “some previous work has shown that adolescents and young adults with sickle cell disease have higher utilization as compared to their younger counterparts,” and asked whether the investigators found differences between cognition and utilization among different age groups within the cohort.

“We didn’t find a significant association with age, but I’m also very interested in that as well, especially considering that maybe there is more or less parent involvement, considering how old the child is,” Ms. Williams said.

Dr. Curtis noted that many of the comorbidities of sickle cell disease such as stroke or degree of anemia can affect cognitive function, but can also have an effect on health care utilization as well, asked whether the investigators were able to look at the potential confounding effects of comorbidities.

Ms. Williams said that, although they have not looked at potential confounders as yet, they hope to do so in future research.

Asked by another audience member whether the authors had considered using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale for children and/or their parents, in addition to other markers, Ms. Williams replied that “I definitely have considered it. Under recommendations from my mentors, we just focused on the quality-of-life scale first, but catastrophizing is something I’m very interested in. Especially, I would love to have the parent factors as well, so along the journey I hope to include that.”

The study was sponsored in part by a grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. Ms Williams is the recipient of an ASH Minority Medical Student Award. Dr. Curtis and Ms. Williams both reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Williams Z et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 366

The cognitive and emotional status of children with sickle cell disease (SCD) appears to have a significant effect on how they cope with pain and use health care resources, investigators have found.

Results of a retrospective study of 112 children and adolescents with SCD, the majority of whom had sickle cell anemia, showed that ED visits and hospitalizations were significantly lower among children with SCD who performed better on an attention task, as well as those who were better able to cope emotionally with having SCD and pain, reported Zaria Williams, a second-year medical student at Howard University, Washington, and colleagues.

“Since I started learning more about sickle cell disease, I’ve been very concerned about the great disease burden that this condition can place on pediatric patients, particularly those who suffer from pain,” Ms. Williams said in an oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Although many children and adolescents with SCD can have their pain effectively managed at home with opioids and other medications, some require ED visits and potentially hospitalizations for pain management.

“There is great variability in health care utilization among patients with sickle cell disease, with some having to come to the ED and be admit to the hospital more than others. In searching for reasons why this might be the case, we thought about cognitive function and emotional differences between children with sickle cell disease as potentially affecting disease management,” she said.
 

Anxiety and catastrophizing

Children with SCD are known to be susceptible to affective comorbidities such as anxiety and catastrophizing, and to conditions that have the potential for deleterious effects on executive function, attention, and working memory. To determine whether cognitive and emotional factors affect the disease self-management in children and adolescents with SCD, Ms. Williams and coinvestigators looked at a cohort of 112 SCD patients aged 7-16 years treated at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C.

The patients had participated in a previous pilot study of computerized working memory training. The authors reviewed charts for data on health care utilization, focusing on ED visits and hospitalization for pain 1 and 3 years after enrollment in the study.

They collected data on SCD genotype, disease-related variables, psychosocial information, and measures of cognition and emotion from the dataset. The information included socioeconomic status, parent education level, household income, and number of adults in the household.

Cognitive measures included the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children full scale IQ, and the Cogstate computerized cognitive assessment system, which measures attention, executive function, and working memory.

Emotional measures were captured from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Sickle Cell Disease module, including questions about worrying and emotions such as anger regarding SCD and pain.

The mean age of participants was 10.61 years. Of the 112 children/adolescents in the study, 65 (58%) were female, and 83 (74%) had sickle cell anemia (either HbSS or HbSβ0 thalassemia).

The participants had a median number of ED visits for pain of one within a year of enrollment, and a median of three within 3 years of enrollment,

The median number of hospital admissions for pain was zero and one, respectively.
 

Attention, emotions linked to higher use

Factors significantly associated with ED visits for pain within the first year were higher (worse) scores for attention (P = .001) and self-reported emotion (P = .049). ED visits within 3 years of enrollment were associated with attention (P = .003) and working memory (P = .039).

Similarly, hospitalizations for pain within the first year were significantly associated with worse attention scores (P = .009) and child-reported emotion (P = .013). Hospitalizations for pain within 3 years of enrollment were also significantly associated with attention deficits (P = .006) and with worse emotional function as reported by a parent (P = .020).

There was no significant effect of SCD genotype or socioeconomic status on either pain-related ED visits or hospitalizations, however.

The investigators theorized that poor attention may make it difficult to distract children from focusing on their pain, and could also hamper disease self-management strategies such as medication adherence and avoiding pain triggers.
 

Age-related differences?

In the question-and-answer session following her presentation, comoderator Susanna A Curtis, MD, from Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, commented that “some previous work has shown that adolescents and young adults with sickle cell disease have higher utilization as compared to their younger counterparts,” and asked whether the investigators found differences between cognition and utilization among different age groups within the cohort.

“We didn’t find a significant association with age, but I’m also very interested in that as well, especially considering that maybe there is more or less parent involvement, considering how old the child is,” Ms. Williams said.

Dr. Curtis noted that many of the comorbidities of sickle cell disease such as stroke or degree of anemia can affect cognitive function, but can also have an effect on health care utilization as well, asked whether the investigators were able to look at the potential confounding effects of comorbidities.

Ms. Williams said that, although they have not looked at potential confounders as yet, they hope to do so in future research.

Asked by another audience member whether the authors had considered using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale for children and/or their parents, in addition to other markers, Ms. Williams replied that “I definitely have considered it. Under recommendations from my mentors, we just focused on the quality-of-life scale first, but catastrophizing is something I’m very interested in. Especially, I would love to have the parent factors as well, so along the journey I hope to include that.”

The study was sponsored in part by a grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. Ms Williams is the recipient of an ASH Minority Medical Student Award. Dr. Curtis and Ms. Williams both reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Williams Z et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 366

The cognitive and emotional status of children with sickle cell disease (SCD) appears to have a significant effect on how they cope with pain and use health care resources, investigators have found.

Results of a retrospective study of 112 children and adolescents with SCD, the majority of whom had sickle cell anemia, showed that ED visits and hospitalizations were significantly lower among children with SCD who performed better on an attention task, as well as those who were better able to cope emotionally with having SCD and pain, reported Zaria Williams, a second-year medical student at Howard University, Washington, and colleagues.

“Since I started learning more about sickle cell disease, I’ve been very concerned about the great disease burden that this condition can place on pediatric patients, particularly those who suffer from pain,” Ms. Williams said in an oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Although many children and adolescents with SCD can have their pain effectively managed at home with opioids and other medications, some require ED visits and potentially hospitalizations for pain management.

“There is great variability in health care utilization among patients with sickle cell disease, with some having to come to the ED and be admit to the hospital more than others. In searching for reasons why this might be the case, we thought about cognitive function and emotional differences between children with sickle cell disease as potentially affecting disease management,” she said.
 

Anxiety and catastrophizing

Children with SCD are known to be susceptible to affective comorbidities such as anxiety and catastrophizing, and to conditions that have the potential for deleterious effects on executive function, attention, and working memory. To determine whether cognitive and emotional factors affect the disease self-management in children and adolescents with SCD, Ms. Williams and coinvestigators looked at a cohort of 112 SCD patients aged 7-16 years treated at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, D.C.

The patients had participated in a previous pilot study of computerized working memory training. The authors reviewed charts for data on health care utilization, focusing on ED visits and hospitalization for pain 1 and 3 years after enrollment in the study.

They collected data on SCD genotype, disease-related variables, psychosocial information, and measures of cognition and emotion from the dataset. The information included socioeconomic status, parent education level, household income, and number of adults in the household.

Cognitive measures included the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children full scale IQ, and the Cogstate computerized cognitive assessment system, which measures attention, executive function, and working memory.

Emotional measures were captured from the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Sickle Cell Disease module, including questions about worrying and emotions such as anger regarding SCD and pain.

The mean age of participants was 10.61 years. Of the 112 children/adolescents in the study, 65 (58%) were female, and 83 (74%) had sickle cell anemia (either HbSS or HbSβ0 thalassemia).

The participants had a median number of ED visits for pain of one within a year of enrollment, and a median of three within 3 years of enrollment,

The median number of hospital admissions for pain was zero and one, respectively.
 

Attention, emotions linked to higher use

Factors significantly associated with ED visits for pain within the first year were higher (worse) scores for attention (P = .001) and self-reported emotion (P = .049). ED visits within 3 years of enrollment were associated with attention (P = .003) and working memory (P = .039).

Similarly, hospitalizations for pain within the first year were significantly associated with worse attention scores (P = .009) and child-reported emotion (P = .013). Hospitalizations for pain within 3 years of enrollment were also significantly associated with attention deficits (P = .006) and with worse emotional function as reported by a parent (P = .020).

There was no significant effect of SCD genotype or socioeconomic status on either pain-related ED visits or hospitalizations, however.

The investigators theorized that poor attention may make it difficult to distract children from focusing on their pain, and could also hamper disease self-management strategies such as medication adherence and avoiding pain triggers.
 

Age-related differences?

In the question-and-answer session following her presentation, comoderator Susanna A Curtis, MD, from Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, commented that “some previous work has shown that adolescents and young adults with sickle cell disease have higher utilization as compared to their younger counterparts,” and asked whether the investigators found differences between cognition and utilization among different age groups within the cohort.

“We didn’t find a significant association with age, but I’m also very interested in that as well, especially considering that maybe there is more or less parent involvement, considering how old the child is,” Ms. Williams said.

Dr. Curtis noted that many of the comorbidities of sickle cell disease such as stroke or degree of anemia can affect cognitive function, but can also have an effect on health care utilization as well, asked whether the investigators were able to look at the potential confounding effects of comorbidities.

Ms. Williams said that, although they have not looked at potential confounders as yet, they hope to do so in future research.

Asked by another audience member whether the authors had considered using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale for children and/or their parents, in addition to other markers, Ms. Williams replied that “I definitely have considered it. Under recommendations from my mentors, we just focused on the quality-of-life scale first, but catastrophizing is something I’m very interested in. Especially, I would love to have the parent factors as well, so along the journey I hope to include that.”

The study was sponsored in part by a grant from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. Ms Williams is the recipient of an ASH Minority Medical Student Award. Dr. Curtis and Ms. Williams both reported no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Williams Z et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 366

When chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) develops as a complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT), treatment options are limited. New findings show that ruxolitinib (Jakafi) was superior to standard therapy in reducing symptoms of cGVHD in the second-line setting, and the results are potentially practice changing.  

The new data, from the REACH3 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, held virtually this year.

This trial is “almost certainly a practice changer,” Robert Brodsky, MD, ASH secretary, said during a press preview webinar.  

Chronic GVHD occurs in approximately 30%-70% of patients who undergo alloSCT, and “has been really hard to treat,” said Dr. Brodsky, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Steroids are the first-line treatment, but after that, nothing else has shown any improvement and even steroids don’t work that well.”

Of the patients assessed, 50% of those who received ruxolitinib responded to therapy compared with only 25% who received standard therapies.

“This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial for chronic GVHD that is positive,” said senior study author Robert Zeiser, PhD, of University Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany. “It shows a significant advantage for ruxolitinib. It is likely that this trial will lead to approval for this indication and change the guidelines for the treatment of this disease.”

Ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor first marketed for use in myelofibrosis, is already  approved for acute GVHD. The Food and Drug Administration approved that indication last year on the basis of data from two previous trials, REACH 1 and REACH 2. The trials found that ruxolitinib was superior to best available therapy for treating patients with acute GVHD.
 

Superior to best available therapy

In the current REACH 3 study, Dr. Zeiser and colleagues compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy in 329 patients with moderate-to-severe cGVHD (both steroid dependent and steroid resistant).

All patients had undergone alloSCT and were randomly assigned to ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) for six 28-day cycles or investigator-selected best available therapy (BAT), of which there were 10 options. Patients continued receiving their regimen of corticosteroids, and viral prophylaxis and antibiotics were allowed as needed for infection prevention and treatment.

The study permitted crossover: Patients on BAT were allowed to start on ruxolitinib on or after cycle 7 day 1 for those who did not achieve or maintain a response, developed toxicity to BAT, or had a cGVHD flare.

The study met its primary endpoint of overall response rate (ORR), with a clear and substantial improvement among patients taking ruxolitinib (50% vs 26%; odds ratio, 2.99; P < .0001a), Dr. Zeiser noted. The complete response rate was also higher (7% vs. 3%).

Both key secondary endpoints also showed that ruxolitinib was superior to BAT. Failure-free survival was significantly longer in the ruxolitinib group (median not reached vs 5.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.370; P < .0001). There was also an improvement in symptoms based on changes in the modified Lee symptom score (mLSS; 0 [no symptoms] to 100 [worst symptoms]) at cycle 7 day 1; the results show that the mLSS responder rate was higher in patients on ruxolitinib (24% vs. 11%; odds ratio, 2.62; P = .0011).

A total of 31 patients in the ruxolitinib group died (19%) along with 27 in the BAT group (16%), with the cGVHD as the main cause of death.

Adverse events were comparable in both groups (ruxolitinib 98% [grade ≥ 3, 57%]; BAT, 92% [grade ≥ 3, 58%], with the most common being anemia (29% vs. 13%), hypertension (16% vs. 13%), pyrexia (16% vs. 9%), and ALT increase (15% vs 4%).
 

More options for patients

“The addition of ruxolitinib is definitely practice changing for this very difficult to treat population,” said James Essell, MD,  medical director of the Blood Cancer Center at Mercy Health, Cincinnati, who was not involved in the study.

However, he added, “more options are still required, as evidenced by the continued deaths of patients despite this new option.”

Dr. Essell pointed out that ibrutinib (Imbruvica) is already approved for the treatment of cGVHD. “Ruxolitinib offers another option for treating this group of patients,” he said, and predicted that “it will be used frequently and has a different toxicity profile, ultimately improving the care for patients with cGVHD.”

It is likely that ruxolitinib will be considered earlier in the treatment of cGVHD to avoid the toxicity of chronic steroid use, he added, but price is a consideration. “The cost of ruxolitinib is over 200 times more than prednisone, limiting the adoption front line without a clinical trial.”

Another expert approached for comment was enthusiastic. “The abstract gave good evidence and efficacy with chronic GVHD,” said Ryotaro Nakamura, MD, associate professor of hematology & hematopoietic cell transplantation at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. He noted that there have been two previous REACH trials which showed a benefit for ruxolitinib in acute GVHD.

What this means is that there is now global evidence that ruxolitinib is better than anything else so far, he said, and this latest trial is just part of the “practice-changing data,” from the three studies. “It is practice changing in that it is providing options now for these patients,” he said.

Dr. Zeiser has disclosed relationships with Incyte, Novartis and Mallinckrodt; other authors disclosed relationships with industry as noted in the abstract. Dr. Essell and Dr. Nakamura have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) develops as a complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT), treatment options are limited. New findings show that ruxolitinib (Jakafi) was superior to standard therapy in reducing symptoms of cGVHD in the second-line setting, and the results are potentially practice changing.  

The new data, from the REACH3 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, held virtually this year.

This trial is “almost certainly a practice changer,” Robert Brodsky, MD, ASH secretary, said during a press preview webinar.  

Chronic GVHD occurs in approximately 30%-70% of patients who undergo alloSCT, and “has been really hard to treat,” said Dr. Brodsky, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Steroids are the first-line treatment, but after that, nothing else has shown any improvement and even steroids don’t work that well.”

Of the patients assessed, 50% of those who received ruxolitinib responded to therapy compared with only 25% who received standard therapies.

“This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial for chronic GVHD that is positive,” said senior study author Robert Zeiser, PhD, of University Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany. “It shows a significant advantage for ruxolitinib. It is likely that this trial will lead to approval for this indication and change the guidelines for the treatment of this disease.”

Ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor first marketed for use in myelofibrosis, is already  approved for acute GVHD. The Food and Drug Administration approved that indication last year on the basis of data from two previous trials, REACH 1 and REACH 2. The trials found that ruxolitinib was superior to best available therapy for treating patients with acute GVHD.
 

Superior to best available therapy

In the current REACH 3 study, Dr. Zeiser and colleagues compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy in 329 patients with moderate-to-severe cGVHD (both steroid dependent and steroid resistant).

All patients had undergone alloSCT and were randomly assigned to ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) for six 28-day cycles or investigator-selected best available therapy (BAT), of which there were 10 options. Patients continued receiving their regimen of corticosteroids, and viral prophylaxis and antibiotics were allowed as needed for infection prevention and treatment.

The study permitted crossover: Patients on BAT were allowed to start on ruxolitinib on or after cycle 7 day 1 for those who did not achieve or maintain a response, developed toxicity to BAT, or had a cGVHD flare.

The study met its primary endpoint of overall response rate (ORR), with a clear and substantial improvement among patients taking ruxolitinib (50% vs 26%; odds ratio, 2.99; P < .0001a), Dr. Zeiser noted. The complete response rate was also higher (7% vs. 3%).

Both key secondary endpoints also showed that ruxolitinib was superior to BAT. Failure-free survival was significantly longer in the ruxolitinib group (median not reached vs 5.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.370; P < .0001). There was also an improvement in symptoms based on changes in the modified Lee symptom score (mLSS; 0 [no symptoms] to 100 [worst symptoms]) at cycle 7 day 1; the results show that the mLSS responder rate was higher in patients on ruxolitinib (24% vs. 11%; odds ratio, 2.62; P = .0011).

A total of 31 patients in the ruxolitinib group died (19%) along with 27 in the BAT group (16%), with the cGVHD as the main cause of death.

Adverse events were comparable in both groups (ruxolitinib 98% [grade ≥ 3, 57%]; BAT, 92% [grade ≥ 3, 58%], with the most common being anemia (29% vs. 13%), hypertension (16% vs. 13%), pyrexia (16% vs. 9%), and ALT increase (15% vs 4%).
 

More options for patients

“The addition of ruxolitinib is definitely practice changing for this very difficult to treat population,” said James Essell, MD,  medical director of the Blood Cancer Center at Mercy Health, Cincinnati, who was not involved in the study.

However, he added, “more options are still required, as evidenced by the continued deaths of patients despite this new option.”

Dr. Essell pointed out that ibrutinib (Imbruvica) is already approved for the treatment of cGVHD. “Ruxolitinib offers another option for treating this group of patients,” he said, and predicted that “it will be used frequently and has a different toxicity profile, ultimately improving the care for patients with cGVHD.”

It is likely that ruxolitinib will be considered earlier in the treatment of cGVHD to avoid the toxicity of chronic steroid use, he added, but price is a consideration. “The cost of ruxolitinib is over 200 times more than prednisone, limiting the adoption front line without a clinical trial.”

Another expert approached for comment was enthusiastic. “The abstract gave good evidence and efficacy with chronic GVHD,” said Ryotaro Nakamura, MD, associate professor of hematology & hematopoietic cell transplantation at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. He noted that there have been two previous REACH trials which showed a benefit for ruxolitinib in acute GVHD.

What this means is that there is now global evidence that ruxolitinib is better than anything else so far, he said, and this latest trial is just part of the “practice-changing data,” from the three studies. “It is practice changing in that it is providing options now for these patients,” he said.

Dr. Zeiser has disclosed relationships with Incyte, Novartis and Mallinckrodt; other authors disclosed relationships with industry as noted in the abstract. Dr. Essell and Dr. Nakamura have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) develops as a complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT), treatment options are limited. New findings show that ruxolitinib (Jakafi) was superior to standard therapy in reducing symptoms of cGVHD in the second-line setting, and the results are potentially practice changing.  

The new data, from the REACH3 trial, were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, held virtually this year.

This trial is “almost certainly a practice changer,” Robert Brodsky, MD, ASH secretary, said during a press preview webinar.  

Chronic GVHD occurs in approximately 30%-70% of patients who undergo alloSCT, and “has been really hard to treat,” said Dr. Brodsky, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Steroids are the first-line treatment, but after that, nothing else has shown any improvement and even steroids don’t work that well.”

Of the patients assessed, 50% of those who received ruxolitinib responded to therapy compared with only 25% who received standard therapies.

“This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial for chronic GVHD that is positive,” said senior study author Robert Zeiser, PhD, of University Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany. “It shows a significant advantage for ruxolitinib. It is likely that this trial will lead to approval for this indication and change the guidelines for the treatment of this disease.”

Ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor first marketed for use in myelofibrosis, is already  approved for acute GVHD. The Food and Drug Administration approved that indication last year on the basis of data from two previous trials, REACH 1 and REACH 2. The trials found that ruxolitinib was superior to best available therapy for treating patients with acute GVHD.
 

Superior to best available therapy

In the current REACH 3 study, Dr. Zeiser and colleagues compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy in 329 patients with moderate-to-severe cGVHD (both steroid dependent and steroid resistant).

All patients had undergone alloSCT and were randomly assigned to ruxolitinib (10 mg twice daily) for six 28-day cycles or investigator-selected best available therapy (BAT), of which there were 10 options. Patients continued receiving their regimen of corticosteroids, and viral prophylaxis and antibiotics were allowed as needed for infection prevention and treatment.

The study permitted crossover: Patients on BAT were allowed to start on ruxolitinib on or after cycle 7 day 1 for those who did not achieve or maintain a response, developed toxicity to BAT, or had a cGVHD flare.

The study met its primary endpoint of overall response rate (ORR), with a clear and substantial improvement among patients taking ruxolitinib (50% vs 26%; odds ratio, 2.99; P < .0001a), Dr. Zeiser noted. The complete response rate was also higher (7% vs. 3%).

Both key secondary endpoints also showed that ruxolitinib was superior to BAT. Failure-free survival was significantly longer in the ruxolitinib group (median not reached vs 5.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.370; P < .0001). There was also an improvement in symptoms based on changes in the modified Lee symptom score (mLSS; 0 [no symptoms] to 100 [worst symptoms]) at cycle 7 day 1; the results show that the mLSS responder rate was higher in patients on ruxolitinib (24% vs. 11%; odds ratio, 2.62; P = .0011).

A total of 31 patients in the ruxolitinib group died (19%) along with 27 in the BAT group (16%), with the cGVHD as the main cause of death.

Adverse events were comparable in both groups (ruxolitinib 98% [grade ≥ 3, 57%]; BAT, 92% [grade ≥ 3, 58%], with the most common being anemia (29% vs. 13%), hypertension (16% vs. 13%), pyrexia (16% vs. 9%), and ALT increase (15% vs 4%).
 

More options for patients

“The addition of ruxolitinib is definitely practice changing for this very difficult to treat population,” said James Essell, MD,  medical director of the Blood Cancer Center at Mercy Health, Cincinnati, who was not involved in the study.

However, he added, “more options are still required, as evidenced by the continued deaths of patients despite this new option.”

Dr. Essell pointed out that ibrutinib (Imbruvica) is already approved for the treatment of cGVHD. “Ruxolitinib offers another option for treating this group of patients,” he said, and predicted that “it will be used frequently and has a different toxicity profile, ultimately improving the care for patients with cGVHD.”

It is likely that ruxolitinib will be considered earlier in the treatment of cGVHD to avoid the toxicity of chronic steroid use, he added, but price is a consideration. “The cost of ruxolitinib is over 200 times more than prednisone, limiting the adoption front line without a clinical trial.”

Another expert approached for comment was enthusiastic. “The abstract gave good evidence and efficacy with chronic GVHD,” said Ryotaro Nakamura, MD, associate professor of hematology & hematopoietic cell transplantation at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. He noted that there have been two previous REACH trials which showed a benefit for ruxolitinib in acute GVHD.

What this means is that there is now global evidence that ruxolitinib is better than anything else so far, he said, and this latest trial is just part of the “practice-changing data,” from the three studies. “It is practice changing in that it is providing options now for these patients,” he said.

Dr. Zeiser has disclosed relationships with Incyte, Novartis and Mallinckrodt; other authors disclosed relationships with industry as noted in the abstract. Dr. Essell and Dr. Nakamura have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite being routinely used in clinical settings, prophylactic use of tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent administered with platelet transfusions, did not reduce bleeding among patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia, according to a new study.

The study compared tranexamic acid to placebo and found no significant differences in terms of the number of bleeding events, the number of red blood cell transfusions, or the number of platelet transfusions that were required.

However, the rate of occlusions in the central venous line was significantly higher for patients in the tranexamic acid group, although there was no difference between groups for other types of thrombotic events.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online.

The study was highlighted as potentially practice changing at a press preview webinar by ASH Secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”

Senior author Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that tranexamic acid has been found to be effective in the treatment of bleeding related to childbirth, surgery, and inherited blood disorders.

It is also used for patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia. There is little evidence to support this use, which is why the researchers decided to investigate.

“Clearly patients with low platelet counts and blood cancers have a different kind of bleeding than the bleeding experienced by patients who have suffered some kind of trauma or surgery,” Dr. Gernsheimer said in a statement.

“Their bleeding likely is due to endothelial damage – damage to the lining of blood vessels – that tranexamic acid would not treat,” she added.

“To prevent bleeding in these patients, we may need to look at ways to speed the healing of the endothelium that occurs with chemotherapy, radiation, and graft-vs-host disease in patients receiving a transplant,” Dr. Gernsheimer commented.
 

Temper enthusiasm

“Overall, I think these results will temper enthusiasm for using tranexamic acid in this setting,” said Mitul Gandhi, MD, a medical oncologist with Virginia Cancer Specialists, who was approached for comment.

These data do not support the routine use of prophylactic tranexamic acid in chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia for patients with platelet counts lower than 30,000/μL, he added.

“The primary objective was not met, and there was an observed increased rate of catheter-associated thrombosis,” he said. “Continued use of judicious transfusion support and correction of a concomitant coagulopathy remains the main clinical approach to these patients.”

Dr. Gandhi commented that tranexamic acid “remains a potentially useful adjunct agent in certain cases of recalcitrant bleeding related to thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy.

“While there is no uniform scenario, it is typically reserved on a case-by-case basis after addressing vascular defects, utilization of platelet, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate transfusions, vitamin K repletion, and of course excluding any antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy,» he told this news organization. “For persistent bleeding in spite of all corrective measures or hemorrhage into noncompressible vascular beds, such as with intracranial bleeds, antifibrinolytic therapy may assist in mitigating further blood loss.”

However, this has to be balanced with the potential increased risk for thrombosis after correction of the hemostatic insult.

At present, tranexamic acid “only has an FDA indication for uterine bleeding, but it is frequently used in trauma settings and obstetrical emergencies,” said Douglas Tremblay, MD, an internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was also approached for comment.

“There is evidence from prior studies that were done 20 or 30 years ago that it may help in this setting, so it is used in some institutions, although we don’t give it prophylactically for patients with a hematologic malignancy.”

Although this was a negative study, Dr. Tremblay pointed out that one thing that may come out of it is that there may be subgroups who can benefit from the prophylactic use of tranexamic acid. “There is very wide inclusion criteria for the study – any type of hematologic malignancy in patients undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplant,” he said in an interview. “Even among chemotherapy and transplant patients, there are different risks for bleeding.”

For example, patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients with other hematologic malignancies, and those undergoing allogeneic transplant are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients undergoing autologous transplant. “So while its unclear if a subgroup may benefit from this strategy, lumped together, it doesn’t appear it is of any benefit and potentially harmful, in terms of line occlusions,” he said. “While that may seem to be a nuisance, it can delay chemotherapy or supportive infusions, and that can be a big deal.”
 

No evidence of benefit

Dr. Gernsheimer and colleagues conducted the American Trial Using Tranexamic Acid in Thrombocytopenia (A-TREAT), which evaluated the effects of prophylactic tranexamic acid as an adjunct to routine transfusion therapy on bleeding and transfusion requirements.

A total of 330 patients were randomly assigned to receive either tranexamic acid 1,000 mg IV or 1,300 mg or placebo. Randomization was stratified by site and therapy: chemotherapy, allogeneic transplant, or autologous transplant. It was anticipated that all patients had hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia (expected platelet count, 10,000/µL for at least 5 days).

Treatment continued for 30 days or platelet count recovery (>30,000/µL), diagnosis of thrombosis or veno-occlusive disease, recurrent line occlusion, visible hematuria, or physician or patient request.

The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients with bleeding of World Health Organization grade 2 or above over 30 days after beginning therapy. Secondary endpoints included the number of transfusions and the number of days alive without WHO grade 2+ bleeding during the first 30 days post activation of study drug.

The time to first WHO 2+ bleeding was “remarkably similar” between the tranexamic acid groups and the placebo group, said Dr. Gernsheimer.

In the cohort as a whole, 48.8% in the placebo group experienced a grade 2+ bleed vs. 45.4% in the tranexamic group (odds ratio, 0.86).

Similar results were observed across subgroups: allogeneic transplant, 57.3% vs. 58.8% (OR, 0.94); autologous transplant, 19.9% vs. 24.7% ( OR, 0.71); or chemotherapy, 48% vs. 52.1% (OR, 0.84).

There were no significant differences in mean number of transfusions (difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, –1.9 to 2) or days alive without grade 2 or higher bleeding (difference, 0.1; 95% CI, –1.4 to 1.5).

“A post hoc analysis of WHO 3+ bleeding showed these events to be rare and without any improvement with tranexamic acid,” she said.

A higher percentage of patients in the tranexamic acid group experienced thrombotic events (19.5% vs. 11%). “But importantly, in both groups, it was primarily due to central line occlusions without an associated thrombus,” said Dr. Gernsheimer. “This was statistically significant.”

Fewer non–catheter related thrombotic events occurred in the tranexamic acid group (3.7% vs. 5.5%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

There was also no significant difference between groups in veno-occlusive disease after 30 days (1.8% vs. 1.2%) or all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4% vs. 3%) or 100 days (11.5% vs. 11.5%). No deaths associated with thrombosis had occurred in either group at 120 days.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Gernsheimer has relationships with Amgen, Cellphire, Dova Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Principia, Rigel, Sanofi, and Vertex. Dr. Tremblay and Dr. Gandhi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite being routinely used in clinical settings, prophylactic use of tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent administered with platelet transfusions, did not reduce bleeding among patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia, according to a new study.

The study compared tranexamic acid to placebo and found no significant differences in terms of the number of bleeding events, the number of red blood cell transfusions, or the number of platelet transfusions that were required.

However, the rate of occlusions in the central venous line was significantly higher for patients in the tranexamic acid group, although there was no difference between groups for other types of thrombotic events.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online.

The study was highlighted as potentially practice changing at a press preview webinar by ASH Secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”

Senior author Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that tranexamic acid has been found to be effective in the treatment of bleeding related to childbirth, surgery, and inherited blood disorders.

It is also used for patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia. There is little evidence to support this use, which is why the researchers decided to investigate.

“Clearly patients with low platelet counts and blood cancers have a different kind of bleeding than the bleeding experienced by patients who have suffered some kind of trauma or surgery,” Dr. Gernsheimer said in a statement.

“Their bleeding likely is due to endothelial damage – damage to the lining of blood vessels – that tranexamic acid would not treat,” she added.

“To prevent bleeding in these patients, we may need to look at ways to speed the healing of the endothelium that occurs with chemotherapy, radiation, and graft-vs-host disease in patients receiving a transplant,” Dr. Gernsheimer commented.
 

Temper enthusiasm

“Overall, I think these results will temper enthusiasm for using tranexamic acid in this setting,” said Mitul Gandhi, MD, a medical oncologist with Virginia Cancer Specialists, who was approached for comment.

These data do not support the routine use of prophylactic tranexamic acid in chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia for patients with platelet counts lower than 30,000/μL, he added.

“The primary objective was not met, and there was an observed increased rate of catheter-associated thrombosis,” he said. “Continued use of judicious transfusion support and correction of a concomitant coagulopathy remains the main clinical approach to these patients.”

Dr. Gandhi commented that tranexamic acid “remains a potentially useful adjunct agent in certain cases of recalcitrant bleeding related to thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy.

“While there is no uniform scenario, it is typically reserved on a case-by-case basis after addressing vascular defects, utilization of platelet, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate transfusions, vitamin K repletion, and of course excluding any antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy,» he told this news organization. “For persistent bleeding in spite of all corrective measures or hemorrhage into noncompressible vascular beds, such as with intracranial bleeds, antifibrinolytic therapy may assist in mitigating further blood loss.”

However, this has to be balanced with the potential increased risk for thrombosis after correction of the hemostatic insult.

At present, tranexamic acid “only has an FDA indication for uterine bleeding, but it is frequently used in trauma settings and obstetrical emergencies,” said Douglas Tremblay, MD, an internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was also approached for comment.

“There is evidence from prior studies that were done 20 or 30 years ago that it may help in this setting, so it is used in some institutions, although we don’t give it prophylactically for patients with a hematologic malignancy.”

Although this was a negative study, Dr. Tremblay pointed out that one thing that may come out of it is that there may be subgroups who can benefit from the prophylactic use of tranexamic acid. “There is very wide inclusion criteria for the study – any type of hematologic malignancy in patients undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplant,” he said in an interview. “Even among chemotherapy and transplant patients, there are different risks for bleeding.”

For example, patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients with other hematologic malignancies, and those undergoing allogeneic transplant are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients undergoing autologous transplant. “So while its unclear if a subgroup may benefit from this strategy, lumped together, it doesn’t appear it is of any benefit and potentially harmful, in terms of line occlusions,” he said. “While that may seem to be a nuisance, it can delay chemotherapy or supportive infusions, and that can be a big deal.”
 

No evidence of benefit

Dr. Gernsheimer and colleagues conducted the American Trial Using Tranexamic Acid in Thrombocytopenia (A-TREAT), which evaluated the effects of prophylactic tranexamic acid as an adjunct to routine transfusion therapy on bleeding and transfusion requirements.

A total of 330 patients were randomly assigned to receive either tranexamic acid 1,000 mg IV or 1,300 mg or placebo. Randomization was stratified by site and therapy: chemotherapy, allogeneic transplant, or autologous transplant. It was anticipated that all patients had hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia (expected platelet count, 10,000/µL for at least 5 days).

Treatment continued for 30 days or platelet count recovery (>30,000/µL), diagnosis of thrombosis or veno-occlusive disease, recurrent line occlusion, visible hematuria, or physician or patient request.

The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients with bleeding of World Health Organization grade 2 or above over 30 days after beginning therapy. Secondary endpoints included the number of transfusions and the number of days alive without WHO grade 2+ bleeding during the first 30 days post activation of study drug.

The time to first WHO 2+ bleeding was “remarkably similar” between the tranexamic acid groups and the placebo group, said Dr. Gernsheimer.

In the cohort as a whole, 48.8% in the placebo group experienced a grade 2+ bleed vs. 45.4% in the tranexamic group (odds ratio, 0.86).

Similar results were observed across subgroups: allogeneic transplant, 57.3% vs. 58.8% (OR, 0.94); autologous transplant, 19.9% vs. 24.7% ( OR, 0.71); or chemotherapy, 48% vs. 52.1% (OR, 0.84).

There were no significant differences in mean number of transfusions (difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, –1.9 to 2) or days alive without grade 2 or higher bleeding (difference, 0.1; 95% CI, –1.4 to 1.5).

“A post hoc analysis of WHO 3+ bleeding showed these events to be rare and without any improvement with tranexamic acid,” she said.

A higher percentage of patients in the tranexamic acid group experienced thrombotic events (19.5% vs. 11%). “But importantly, in both groups, it was primarily due to central line occlusions without an associated thrombus,” said Dr. Gernsheimer. “This was statistically significant.”

Fewer non–catheter related thrombotic events occurred in the tranexamic acid group (3.7% vs. 5.5%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

There was also no significant difference between groups in veno-occlusive disease after 30 days (1.8% vs. 1.2%) or all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4% vs. 3%) or 100 days (11.5% vs. 11.5%). No deaths associated with thrombosis had occurred in either group at 120 days.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Gernsheimer has relationships with Amgen, Cellphire, Dova Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Principia, Rigel, Sanofi, and Vertex. Dr. Tremblay and Dr. Gandhi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite being routinely used in clinical settings, prophylactic use of tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic agent administered with platelet transfusions, did not reduce bleeding among patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia, according to a new study.

The study compared tranexamic acid to placebo and found no significant differences in terms of the number of bleeding events, the number of red blood cell transfusions, or the number of platelet transfusions that were required.

However, the rate of occlusions in the central venous line was significantly higher for patients in the tranexamic acid group, although there was no difference between groups for other types of thrombotic events.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held online.

The study was highlighted as potentially practice changing at a press preview webinar by ASH Secretary Robert Brodsky, MD.

“They found absolutely no difference in bleeding or need for transfusion,” said Brodsky. “What they did find was more catheter-associated blood clots in the tranexamic acid group. This is a practice changer in that it probably should not be given prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia.”

Senior author Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that tranexamic acid has been found to be effective in the treatment of bleeding related to childbirth, surgery, and inherited blood disorders.

It is also used for patients with blood cancers and severe thrombocytopenia. There is little evidence to support this use, which is why the researchers decided to investigate.

“Clearly patients with low platelet counts and blood cancers have a different kind of bleeding than the bleeding experienced by patients who have suffered some kind of trauma or surgery,” Dr. Gernsheimer said in a statement.

“Their bleeding likely is due to endothelial damage – damage to the lining of blood vessels – that tranexamic acid would not treat,” she added.

“To prevent bleeding in these patients, we may need to look at ways to speed the healing of the endothelium that occurs with chemotherapy, radiation, and graft-vs-host disease in patients receiving a transplant,” Dr. Gernsheimer commented.
 

Temper enthusiasm

“Overall, I think these results will temper enthusiasm for using tranexamic acid in this setting,” said Mitul Gandhi, MD, a medical oncologist with Virginia Cancer Specialists, who was approached for comment.

These data do not support the routine use of prophylactic tranexamic acid in chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia for patients with platelet counts lower than 30,000/μL, he added.

“The primary objective was not met, and there was an observed increased rate of catheter-associated thrombosis,” he said. “Continued use of judicious transfusion support and correction of a concomitant coagulopathy remains the main clinical approach to these patients.”

Dr. Gandhi commented that tranexamic acid “remains a potentially useful adjunct agent in certain cases of recalcitrant bleeding related to thrombocytopenia or coagulopathy.

“While there is no uniform scenario, it is typically reserved on a case-by-case basis after addressing vascular defects, utilization of platelet, fresh frozen plasma, cryoprecipitate transfusions, vitamin K repletion, and of course excluding any antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy,» he told this news organization. “For persistent bleeding in spite of all corrective measures or hemorrhage into noncompressible vascular beds, such as with intracranial bleeds, antifibrinolytic therapy may assist in mitigating further blood loss.”

However, this has to be balanced with the potential increased risk for thrombosis after correction of the hemostatic insult.

At present, tranexamic acid “only has an FDA indication for uterine bleeding, but it is frequently used in trauma settings and obstetrical emergencies,” said Douglas Tremblay, MD, an internist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was also approached for comment.

“There is evidence from prior studies that were done 20 or 30 years ago that it may help in this setting, so it is used in some institutions, although we don’t give it prophylactically for patients with a hematologic malignancy.”

Although this was a negative study, Dr. Tremblay pointed out that one thing that may come out of it is that there may be subgroups who can benefit from the prophylactic use of tranexamic acid. “There is very wide inclusion criteria for the study – any type of hematologic malignancy in patients undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplant,” he said in an interview. “Even among chemotherapy and transplant patients, there are different risks for bleeding.”

For example, patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients with other hematologic malignancies, and those undergoing allogeneic transplant are at an increased risk of bleeding in comparison with patients undergoing autologous transplant. “So while its unclear if a subgroup may benefit from this strategy, lumped together, it doesn’t appear it is of any benefit and potentially harmful, in terms of line occlusions,” he said. “While that may seem to be a nuisance, it can delay chemotherapy or supportive infusions, and that can be a big deal.”
 

No evidence of benefit

Dr. Gernsheimer and colleagues conducted the American Trial Using Tranexamic Acid in Thrombocytopenia (A-TREAT), which evaluated the effects of prophylactic tranexamic acid as an adjunct to routine transfusion therapy on bleeding and transfusion requirements.

A total of 330 patients were randomly assigned to receive either tranexamic acid 1,000 mg IV or 1,300 mg or placebo. Randomization was stratified by site and therapy: chemotherapy, allogeneic transplant, or autologous transplant. It was anticipated that all patients had hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia (expected platelet count, 10,000/µL for at least 5 days).

Treatment continued for 30 days or platelet count recovery (>30,000/µL), diagnosis of thrombosis or veno-occlusive disease, recurrent line occlusion, visible hematuria, or physician or patient request.

The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of patients with bleeding of World Health Organization grade 2 or above over 30 days after beginning therapy. Secondary endpoints included the number of transfusions and the number of days alive without WHO grade 2+ bleeding during the first 30 days post activation of study drug.

The time to first WHO 2+ bleeding was “remarkably similar” between the tranexamic acid groups and the placebo group, said Dr. Gernsheimer.

In the cohort as a whole, 48.8% in the placebo group experienced a grade 2+ bleed vs. 45.4% in the tranexamic group (odds ratio, 0.86).

Similar results were observed across subgroups: allogeneic transplant, 57.3% vs. 58.8% (OR, 0.94); autologous transplant, 19.9% vs. 24.7% ( OR, 0.71); or chemotherapy, 48% vs. 52.1% (OR, 0.84).

There were no significant differences in mean number of transfusions (difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, –1.9 to 2) or days alive without grade 2 or higher bleeding (difference, 0.1; 95% CI, –1.4 to 1.5).

“A post hoc analysis of WHO 3+ bleeding showed these events to be rare and without any improvement with tranexamic acid,” she said.

A higher percentage of patients in the tranexamic acid group experienced thrombotic events (19.5% vs. 11%). “But importantly, in both groups, it was primarily due to central line occlusions without an associated thrombus,” said Dr. Gernsheimer. “This was statistically significant.”

Fewer non–catheter related thrombotic events occurred in the tranexamic acid group (3.7% vs. 5.5%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

There was also no significant difference between groups in veno-occlusive disease after 30 days (1.8% vs. 1.2%) or all-cause mortality at 30 days (2.4% vs. 3%) or 100 days (11.5% vs. 11.5%). No deaths associated with thrombosis had occurred in either group at 120 days.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Gernsheimer has relationships with Amgen, Cellphire, Dova Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Principia, Rigel, Sanofi, and Vertex. Dr. Tremblay and Dr. Gandhi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) patients in the minimal residual disease (MRD) cohort of the phase 2 CAPTIVATE trial, a 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 95% in those randomized to placebo after 12 cycles of combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax supports a fixed-duration treatment approach, according to William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Ibrutinib, a once-daily Bruton kinase inhibitor, is the only targeted therapy for first-line treatment of CLL that has demonstrated significant overall survival benefit in randomized phase 3 studies, Dr. Wierda said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting, held virtually.

Ibrutinib and venetoclax have synergistic and complementary antitumor activity, he noted, through mobilizing and clearing CLL cells from protective niches and disease compartments beyond blood and bone marrow.

Fixed-duration study

CAPTIVATE (PCYC-1142), an international phase 2 study, evaluated first-line treatment with 12 cycles of the ibrutinib/venetoclax combination in MRD and fixed-duration cohorts. The current primary analysis of 1-year DFS from the MRD cohort tested whether the regimen allows for treatment-free remission in the setting of confirmed undetectable MRD (uMRD).

Patients (n = 164, median age 58 years) in the CAPTIVATE study MRD cohort had previously untreated active CLL/SLL requiring treatment per International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia criteria.

They received 3 cycles of lead-in ibrutinib (420 mg once daily) followed by 12 cycles of ibrutinib (420 mg once daily plus venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg once daily). Thereafter, in an MRD-guided 1:1 randomization stratified by immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV) mutational status, those with confirmed uMRD received either placebo or ibrutinib, and those with uMRD not confirmed received either ibrutinib or ibrutinib plus venetoclax (both open-label).

Among high-risk features in CAPTIVATE subjects, 60% of patients had unmutated IGHV, with del(17p)/TP53 mutation in 20%, del(11Q) in 17%, complex karyotype in 19%, cytopenias in 36%, bulky lymph nodes in 32%, and absolute neutrophil count ≥25x109/L in 76%.
 

Response findings

The ibrutinib lead-in, Dr. Wierda said, reduced tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk, shifting 90% of patients with high baseline TLS risk to medium or low-risk categories (from 77 to 51 patients), precluding need for hospitalization with venetoclax initiation.

The rate for best response of uMRD (defined as uMRD over at least 3 cycles in both peripheral blood and bone marrow) in evaluable patients was 75% in peripheral blood (n = 163) and 72% in bone marrow (n = 155).

Confirmed uMRD was achieved in 86/149 (58%), with uMRD not confirmed in 63/149 (uMRD 32% in bone marrow and 48% in peripheral blood). One-year DFS after the further randomization to placebo or ibrutinib in the confirmed uMRD group was 95.3% in the placebo group and 100% in the ibrutinib group (P = .1475). In the uMRD not confirmed group, 30-month progression-free survival (PFS) was 95.2% and 96.7% in the ibrutinib and ibrutinib plus venetoclax groups, respectively. Thirty-month PFS rates in the confirmed uMRD placebo and ibrutinib arms were 95.3% and 100%. “Thirty-month PFS rates were greater than 95% across all randomized arms,” Dr. Wierda stated.

In patients without confirmed uMRD after 12 cycles of combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax, additional randomized treatment led to greater increases in uMRD in the ibrutinib plus venetoclax group than in the ibrutinib alone group (bone marrow additional 10% ibrutinib alone, 34% ibrutinib plus venetoclax; peripheral blood 0% ibrutinib, 19% ibrutinib plus venetoclax).

Adverse events generally decreased after the first 6 months of ibrutinib plus venetoclax treatment, with no new safety signals emerging over time. “There were no safety concerns with this highly active combination of first-line ibrutinib plus venetoclax. It’s an oral, once-daily fixed duration regimen that achieves undetectable MRD in blood or bone marrow in three-fourths of patients after 12 cycles of combined treatment.”

When asked, in a question-and-answer session after his presentation, if the findings were “practice changing,” Dr. Wierda responded: “We need additional data from ongoing studies looking at various combinations of targeted therapy. But this study does clearly show efficacy in terms of depth of remission, and it supports the concept of fixed duration treatment, particularly for those patients who achieved undetectable MRD status.”
 

SOURCE: William G. Wierda, MD, PhD. ASH 2020, Abstract 123.

Among chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) patients in the minimal residual disease (MRD) cohort of the phase 2 CAPTIVATE trial, a 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 95% in those randomized to placebo after 12 cycles of combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax supports a fixed-duration treatment approach, according to William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Ibrutinib, a once-daily Bruton kinase inhibitor, is the only targeted therapy for first-line treatment of CLL that has demonstrated significant overall survival benefit in randomized phase 3 studies, Dr. Wierda said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting, held virtually.

Ibrutinib and venetoclax have synergistic and complementary antitumor activity, he noted, through mobilizing and clearing CLL cells from protective niches and disease compartments beyond blood and bone marrow.

Fixed-duration study

CAPTIVATE (PCYC-1142), an international phase 2 study, evaluated first-line treatment with 12 cycles of the ibrutinib/venetoclax combination in MRD and fixed-duration cohorts. The current primary analysis of 1-year DFS from the MRD cohort tested whether the regimen allows for treatment-free remission in the setting of confirmed undetectable MRD (uMRD).

Patients (n = 164, median age 58 years) in the CAPTIVATE study MRD cohort had previously untreated active CLL/SLL requiring treatment per International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia criteria.

They received 3 cycles of lead-in ibrutinib (420 mg once daily) followed by 12 cycles of ibrutinib (420 mg once daily plus venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg once daily). Thereafter, in an MRD-guided 1:1 randomization stratified by immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV) mutational status, those with confirmed uMRD received either placebo or ibrutinib, and those with uMRD not confirmed received either ibrutinib or ibrutinib plus venetoclax (both open-label).

Among high-risk features in CAPTIVATE subjects, 60% of patients had unmutated IGHV, with del(17p)/TP53 mutation in 20%, del(11Q) in 17%, complex karyotype in 19%, cytopenias in 36%, bulky lymph nodes in 32%, and absolute neutrophil count ≥25x109/L in 76%.
 

Response findings

The ibrutinib lead-in, Dr. Wierda said, reduced tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk, shifting 90% of patients with high baseline TLS risk to medium or low-risk categories (from 77 to 51 patients), precluding need for hospitalization with venetoclax initiation.

The rate for best response of uMRD (defined as uMRD over at least 3 cycles in both peripheral blood and bone marrow) in evaluable patients was 75% in peripheral blood (n = 163) and 72% in bone marrow (n = 155).

Confirmed uMRD was achieved in 86/149 (58%), with uMRD not confirmed in 63/149 (uMRD 32% in bone marrow and 48% in peripheral blood). One-year DFS after the further randomization to placebo or ibrutinib in the confirmed uMRD group was 95.3% in the placebo group and 100% in the ibrutinib group (P = .1475). In the uMRD not confirmed group, 30-month progression-free survival (PFS) was 95.2% and 96.7% in the ibrutinib and ibrutinib plus venetoclax groups, respectively. Thirty-month PFS rates in the confirmed uMRD placebo and ibrutinib arms were 95.3% and 100%. “Thirty-month PFS rates were greater than 95% across all randomized arms,” Dr. Wierda stated.

In patients without confirmed uMRD after 12 cycles of combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax, additional randomized treatment led to greater increases in uMRD in the ibrutinib plus venetoclax group than in the ibrutinib alone group (bone marrow additional 10% ibrutinib alone, 34% ibrutinib plus venetoclax; peripheral blood 0% ibrutinib, 19% ibrutinib plus venetoclax).

Adverse events generally decreased after the first 6 months of ibrutinib plus venetoclax treatment, with no new safety signals emerging over time. “There were no safety concerns with this highly active combination of first-line ibrutinib plus venetoclax. It’s an oral, once-daily fixed duration regimen that achieves undetectable MRD in blood or bone marrow in three-fourths of patients after 12 cycles of combined treatment.”

When asked, in a question-and-answer session after his presentation, if the findings were “practice changing,” Dr. Wierda responded: “We need additional data from ongoing studies looking at various combinations of targeted therapy. But this study does clearly show efficacy in terms of depth of remission, and it supports the concept of fixed duration treatment, particularly for those patients who achieved undetectable MRD status.”
 

SOURCE: William G. Wierda, MD, PhD. ASH 2020, Abstract 123.

Among chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) patients in the minimal residual disease (MRD) cohort of the phase 2 CAPTIVATE trial, a 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 95% in those randomized to placebo after 12 cycles of combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax supports a fixed-duration treatment approach, according to William G. Wierda, MD, PhD, University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Ibrutinib, a once-daily Bruton kinase inhibitor, is the only targeted therapy for first-line treatment of CLL that has demonstrated significant overall survival benefit in randomized phase 3 studies, Dr. Wierda said at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting, held virtually.

Ibrutinib and venetoclax have synergistic and complementary antitumor activity, he noted, through mobilizing and clearing CLL cells from protective niches and disease compartments beyond blood and bone marrow.

Fixed-duration study

CAPTIVATE (PCYC-1142), an international phase 2 study, evaluated first-line treatment with 12 cycles of the ibrutinib/venetoclax combination in MRD and fixed-duration cohorts. The current primary analysis of 1-year DFS from the MRD cohort tested whether the regimen allows for treatment-free remission in the setting of confirmed undetectable MRD (uMRD).

Patients (n = 164, median age 58 years) in the CAPTIVATE study MRD cohort had previously untreated active CLL/SLL requiring treatment per International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia criteria.

They received 3 cycles of lead-in ibrutinib (420 mg once daily) followed by 12 cycles of ibrutinib (420 mg once daily plus venetoclax ramp-up to 400 mg once daily). Thereafter, in an MRD-guided 1:1 randomization stratified by immunoglobulin heavy chain (IGHV) mutational status, those with confirmed uMRD received either placebo or ibrutinib, and those with uMRD not confirmed received either ibrutinib or ibrutinib plus venetoclax (both open-label).

Among high-risk features in CAPTIVATE subjects, 60% of patients had unmutated IGHV, with del(17p)/TP53 mutation in 20%, del(11Q) in 17%, complex karyotype in 19%, cytopenias in 36%, bulky lymph nodes in 32%, and absolute neutrophil count ≥25x109/L in 76%.
 

Response findings

The ibrutinib lead-in, Dr. Wierda said, reduced tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) risk, shifting 90% of patients with high baseline TLS risk to medium or low-risk categories (from 77 to 51 patients), precluding need for hospitalization with venetoclax initiation.

The rate for best response of uMRD (defined as uMRD over at least 3 cycles in both peripheral blood and bone marrow) in evaluable patients was 75% in peripheral blood (n = 163) and 72% in bone marrow (n = 155).

Confirmed uMRD was achieved in 86/149 (58%), with uMRD not confirmed in 63/149 (uMRD 32% in bone marrow and 48% in peripheral blood). One-year DFS after the further randomization to placebo or ibrutinib in the confirmed uMRD group was 95.3% in the placebo group and 100% in the ibrutinib group (P = .1475). In the uMRD not confirmed group, 30-month progression-free survival (PFS) was 95.2% and 96.7% in the ibrutinib and ibrutinib plus venetoclax groups, respectively. Thirty-month PFS rates in the confirmed uMRD placebo and ibrutinib arms were 95.3% and 100%. “Thirty-month PFS rates were greater than 95% across all randomized arms,” Dr. Wierda stated.

In patients without confirmed uMRD after 12 cycles of combined ibrutinib plus venetoclax, additional randomized treatment led to greater increases in uMRD in the ibrutinib plus venetoclax group than in the ibrutinib alone group (bone marrow additional 10% ibrutinib alone, 34% ibrutinib plus venetoclax; peripheral blood 0% ibrutinib, 19% ibrutinib plus venetoclax).

Adverse events generally decreased after the first 6 months of ibrutinib plus venetoclax treatment, with no new safety signals emerging over time. “There were no safety concerns with this highly active combination of first-line ibrutinib plus venetoclax. It’s an oral, once-daily fixed duration regimen that achieves undetectable MRD in blood or bone marrow in three-fourths of patients after 12 cycles of combined treatment.”

When asked, in a question-and-answer session after his presentation, if the findings were “practice changing,” Dr. Wierda responded: “We need additional data from ongoing studies looking at various combinations of targeted therapy. But this study does clearly show efficacy in terms of depth of remission, and it supports the concept of fixed duration treatment, particularly for those patients who achieved undetectable MRD status.”
 

SOURCE: William G. Wierda, MD, PhD. ASH 2020, Abstract 123.