Lymphoma & Plasma Cell Disorders

Fred Hutch News Service

Researchers say they have identified potential biomarkers that may be used to help identify patients at an increased risk of neurotoxicity after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

The team also created an algorithm intended to identify patients whose symptoms were most likely to be life-threatening.

The researchers discovered the biomarkers and developed the algorithm based on data from a trial of JCAR014, an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, in patients with B-cell malignancies.

Cameron J. Turtle, MBBS, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, and his colleagues described this research in Cancer Discovery.

“It’s essential that we understand the potential side effects of CAR T therapies” Dr Turtle said. “While use of these cell therapies is likely to dramatically increase because they’ve been so effective in patients with resistant or refractory B-cell malignancies, there is still much to learn.”

Dr Turtle and his colleagues sought to provide a detailed clinical, radiological, and pathological characterization of neurotoxicity arising from anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy.

So the team analyzed data from a phase 1/2 trial of 133 adults with relapsed and/or refractory CD19+ B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The patients received lymphodepleting chemotherapy followed by an infusion of JCAR014.

Neurotoxicity

Within 28 days of treatment, 53 patients (40%) developed grade 1 or higher neurologic adverse events (AEs), 28 patients (21%) had grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity, and 4 patients (3%) developed fatal neurotoxicity.

Of the 53 patients with any neurologic AE, 48 (91%) also had cytokine release syndrome (CRS). All neurologic AEs in the 5 patients who did not have CRS were mild (grade 1) and transient.

Neurologic AEs included delirium with preserved alertness (66%), headache (55%), language disturbance (34%), decreased level of consciousness (25%), seizures (8%), and macroscopic intracranial hemorrhage (2%).

For most patients, neurotoxicity resolved by day 28 after CAR T-cell infusion. The exceptions were 1 patient in whom a grade 1 neurologic AE resolved 2 months after CAR T-cell infusion and the 4 patients who died of neurotoxicity.

The 4 neurotoxicity-related deaths were due to:

• Acute cerebral edema (n=2)
• Multifocal brainstem hemorrhage and edema associated with disseminated intravascular coagulation (n=1)
• Cortical laminar necrosis with a persistent minimally conscious state until death (n=1).

Potential biomarkers

In a univariate analysis, neurotoxicity was significantly more frequent in patients who:

• Had CRS (P<0.0001)
• Received a high CAR T-cell dose (P<0.0001)
• Had pre-existing neurologic comorbidities at baseline (P=0.0059).

In a multivariable analysis (which did not include CRS as a variable), patients had an increased risk of neurotoxicity if they:

• Had pre-existing neurologic comorbidities (P=0.0023)
• Received cyclophosphamide and fludarabine lymphodepletion (P=0.0259)
• Received a higher CAR T-cell dose (P=0.0009)
• Had a higher burden of malignant CD19+ B cells in the bone marrow (P=0.0165).

The researchers noted that patients who developed grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity had more severe CRS (P<0.0001).

“It appears that cytokine release syndrome is probably necessary for most cases of severe neurotoxicity, but, in terms of what triggers a person with cytokine release syndrome to get neurotoxicity, that’s something we need to investigate further,” said study author Kevin Hay, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

Dr Hay and his colleagues also found that patients with severe neurotoxicity exhibited evidence of endothelial activation, which could contribute to manifestations such as capillary leak, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and disruption of the blood-brain barrier.

Algorithm

The researchers developed a predictive classification tree algorithm to identify patients who have an increased risk of severe neurotoxicity.

The algorithm suggests patients who meet the following criteria in the first 36 hours after CAR T-cell infusion have a high risk of grade 4-5 neurotoxicity:

• Fever of 38.9°C or greater
• Serum levels of IL6 at 16 pg/mL or higher
• Serum levels of MCP1 at 1343.5 pg/mL or higher.

This algorithm predicted severe neurotoxicity with 100% sensitivity and 94% specificity. Eight patients were misclassified, 1 of whom did not subsequently develop grade 2-3 neurotoxicity and/or grade 2 or higher CRS.

Funding

This research was funded by Juno Therapeutics Inc. (the company developing JCAR014), the National Cancer Institute, Life Science Discovery Fund, the Bezos family, the University of British Columbia Clinical Investigator Program, and via institutional funds from Bloodworks Northwest.

Dr Turtle receives research funding from Juno Therapeutics, holds patents licensed by Juno, and has pending patent applications that could be licensed by nonprofit institutions and for-profit companies, including Juno.

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has a financial interest in Juno and receives licensing and other payments from the company.

Fred Hutch News Service

Researchers say they have identified potential biomarkers that may be used to help identify patients at an increased risk of neurotoxicity after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

The team also created an algorithm intended to identify patients whose symptoms were most likely to be life-threatening.

The researchers discovered the biomarkers and developed the algorithm based on data from a trial of JCAR014, an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, in patients with B-cell malignancies.

Cameron J. Turtle, MBBS, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, and his colleagues described this research in Cancer Discovery.

“It’s essential that we understand the potential side effects of CAR T therapies” Dr Turtle said. “While use of these cell therapies is likely to dramatically increase because they’ve been so effective in patients with resistant or refractory B-cell malignancies, there is still much to learn.”

Dr Turtle and his colleagues sought to provide a detailed clinical, radiological, and pathological characterization of neurotoxicity arising from anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy.

So the team analyzed data from a phase 1/2 trial of 133 adults with relapsed and/or refractory CD19+ B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The patients received lymphodepleting chemotherapy followed by an infusion of JCAR014.

Neurotoxicity

Within 28 days of treatment, 53 patients (40%) developed grade 1 or higher neurologic adverse events (AEs), 28 patients (21%) had grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity, and 4 patients (3%) developed fatal neurotoxicity.

Of the 53 patients with any neurologic AE, 48 (91%) also had cytokine release syndrome (CRS). All neurologic AEs in the 5 patients who did not have CRS were mild (grade 1) and transient.

Neurologic AEs included delirium with preserved alertness (66%), headache (55%), language disturbance (34%), decreased level of consciousness (25%), seizures (8%), and macroscopic intracranial hemorrhage (2%).

For most patients, neurotoxicity resolved by day 28 after CAR T-cell infusion. The exceptions were 1 patient in whom a grade 1 neurologic AE resolved 2 months after CAR T-cell infusion and the 4 patients who died of neurotoxicity.

The 4 neurotoxicity-related deaths were due to:

• Acute cerebral edema (n=2)
• Multifocal brainstem hemorrhage and edema associated with disseminated intravascular coagulation (n=1)
• Cortical laminar necrosis with a persistent minimally conscious state until death (n=1).

Potential biomarkers

In a univariate analysis, neurotoxicity was significantly more frequent in patients who:

• Had CRS (P<0.0001)
• Received a high CAR T-cell dose (P<0.0001)
• Had pre-existing neurologic comorbidities at baseline (P=0.0059).

In a multivariable analysis (which did not include CRS as a variable), patients had an increased risk of neurotoxicity if they:

• Had pre-existing neurologic comorbidities (P=0.0023)
• Received cyclophosphamide and fludarabine lymphodepletion (P=0.0259)
• Received a higher CAR T-cell dose (P=0.0009)
• Had a higher burden of malignant CD19+ B cells in the bone marrow (P=0.0165).

The researchers noted that patients who developed grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity had more severe CRS (P<0.0001).

“It appears that cytokine release syndrome is probably necessary for most cases of severe neurotoxicity, but, in terms of what triggers a person with cytokine release syndrome to get neurotoxicity, that’s something we need to investigate further,” said study author Kevin Hay, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

Dr Hay and his colleagues also found that patients with severe neurotoxicity exhibited evidence of endothelial activation, which could contribute to manifestations such as capillary leak, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and disruption of the blood-brain barrier.

Algorithm

The researchers developed a predictive classification tree algorithm to identify patients who have an increased risk of severe neurotoxicity.

The algorithm suggests patients who meet the following criteria in the first 36 hours after CAR T-cell infusion have a high risk of grade 4-5 neurotoxicity:

• Fever of 38.9°C or greater
• Serum levels of IL6 at 16 pg/mL or higher
• Serum levels of MCP1 at 1343.5 pg/mL or higher.

This algorithm predicted severe neurotoxicity with 100% sensitivity and 94% specificity. Eight patients were misclassified, 1 of whom did not subsequently develop grade 2-3 neurotoxicity and/or grade 2 or higher CRS.

Funding

This research was funded by Juno Therapeutics Inc. (the company developing JCAR014), the National Cancer Institute, Life Science Discovery Fund, the Bezos family, the University of British Columbia Clinical Investigator Program, and via institutional funds from Bloodworks Northwest.

Dr Turtle receives research funding from Juno Therapeutics, holds patents licensed by Juno, and has pending patent applications that could be licensed by nonprofit institutions and for-profit companies, including Juno.

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has a financial interest in Juno and receives licensing and other payments from the company.

Fred Hutch News Service

Researchers say they have identified potential biomarkers that may be used to help identify patients at an increased risk of neurotoxicity after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy.

The team also created an algorithm intended to identify patients whose symptoms were most likely to be life-threatening.

The researchers discovered the biomarkers and developed the algorithm based on data from a trial of JCAR014, an anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, in patients with B-cell malignancies.

Cameron J. Turtle, MBBS, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, and his colleagues described this research in Cancer Discovery.

“It’s essential that we understand the potential side effects of CAR T therapies” Dr Turtle said. “While use of these cell therapies is likely to dramatically increase because they’ve been so effective in patients with resistant or refractory B-cell malignancies, there is still much to learn.”

Dr Turtle and his colleagues sought to provide a detailed clinical, radiological, and pathological characterization of neurotoxicity arising from anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy.

So the team analyzed data from a phase 1/2 trial of 133 adults with relapsed and/or refractory CD19+ B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

The patients received lymphodepleting chemotherapy followed by an infusion of JCAR014.

Neurotoxicity

Within 28 days of treatment, 53 patients (40%) developed grade 1 or higher neurologic adverse events (AEs), 28 patients (21%) had grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity, and 4 patients (3%) developed fatal neurotoxicity.

Of the 53 patients with any neurologic AE, 48 (91%) also had cytokine release syndrome (CRS). All neurologic AEs in the 5 patients who did not have CRS were mild (grade 1) and transient.

Neurologic AEs included delirium with preserved alertness (66%), headache (55%), language disturbance (34%), decreased level of consciousness (25%), seizures (8%), and macroscopic intracranial hemorrhage (2%).

For most patients, neurotoxicity resolved by day 28 after CAR T-cell infusion. The exceptions were 1 patient in whom a grade 1 neurologic AE resolved 2 months after CAR T-cell infusion and the 4 patients who died of neurotoxicity.

The 4 neurotoxicity-related deaths were due to:

• Acute cerebral edema (n=2)
• Multifocal brainstem hemorrhage and edema associated with disseminated intravascular coagulation (n=1)
• Cortical laminar necrosis with a persistent minimally conscious state until death (n=1).

Potential biomarkers

In a univariate analysis, neurotoxicity was significantly more frequent in patients who:

• Had CRS (P<0.0001)
• Received a high CAR T-cell dose (P<0.0001)
• Had pre-existing neurologic comorbidities at baseline (P=0.0059).

In a multivariable analysis (which did not include CRS as a variable), patients had an increased risk of neurotoxicity if they:

• Had pre-existing neurologic comorbidities (P=0.0023)
• Received cyclophosphamide and fludarabine lymphodepletion (P=0.0259)
• Received a higher CAR T-cell dose (P=0.0009)
• Had a higher burden of malignant CD19+ B cells in the bone marrow (P=0.0165).

The researchers noted that patients who developed grade 3 or higher neurotoxicity had more severe CRS (P<0.0001).

“It appears that cytokine release syndrome is probably necessary for most cases of severe neurotoxicity, but, in terms of what triggers a person with cytokine release syndrome to get neurotoxicity, that’s something we need to investigate further,” said study author Kevin Hay, MD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.

Dr Hay and his colleagues also found that patients with severe neurotoxicity exhibited evidence of endothelial activation, which could contribute to manifestations such as capillary leak, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and disruption of the blood-brain barrier.

Algorithm

The researchers developed a predictive classification tree algorithm to identify patients who have an increased risk of severe neurotoxicity.

The algorithm suggests patients who meet the following criteria in the first 36 hours after CAR T-cell infusion have a high risk of grade 4-5 neurotoxicity:

• Fever of 38.9°C or greater
• Serum levels of IL6 at 16 pg/mL or higher
• Serum levels of MCP1 at 1343.5 pg/mL or higher.

This algorithm predicted severe neurotoxicity with 100% sensitivity and 94% specificity. Eight patients were misclassified, 1 of whom did not subsequently develop grade 2-3 neurotoxicity and/or grade 2 or higher CRS.

Funding

This research was funded by Juno Therapeutics Inc. (the company developing JCAR014), the National Cancer Institute, Life Science Discovery Fund, the Bezos family, the University of British Columbia Clinical Investigator Program, and via institutional funds from Bloodworks Northwest.

Dr Turtle receives research funding from Juno Therapeutics, holds patents licensed by Juno, and has pending patent applications that could be licensed by nonprofit institutions and for-profit companies, including Juno.

The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has a financial interest in Juno and receives licensing and other payments from the company.

Image by Joshua Stokes

Researchers have reported successful inhibition of the phosphatase SHIP1, which may be an effective approach for treating T-cell lymphoma.

The team found that intermittent treatment with a SHIP1 inhibitor prevented the immune exhaustion observed with SHIP1 deletion.

Intermittent SHIP1 inhibition enhanced the antitumor activity of natural killer (NK) cells and T cells in a mouse model of T-cell lymphoma.

The treatment also appeared to have a direct chemotherapeutic effect and induced immunological memory against lymphoma cells.

Matthew Gumbleton, MD, of SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York, and his colleagues reported these results in Science Signaling.

The researchers noted that previous efforts to inhibit SHIP1 have yielded disappointing results. Mice engineered to lack the SHIP1 gene had poorly responsive immune systems, potentially because overactivated cells became exhausted.

Dr Gumbleton and his colleagues found they could overcome this problem by administering a SHIP1 inhibitor—3-a-aminocholestane (3AC)—in a pulsed regimen of 2 consecutive treatment days per week.

The team tested this regimen in mouse models of colorectal cancer and T-cell lymphoma (RMA-Rae1).

In the lymphoma model, intermittent 3AC treatment increased the responsiveness of T cells and NK cells.

The treatment significantly increased the number of NK cells at the tumor site and the terminal maturation of the peripheral NK-cell compartment.

3AC also enhanced FasL-Fas–mediated killing of lymphoma cells. (NK cells induce apoptosis of target cells via Fas-FasL signaling.)

However, 3AC treatment reduced lymphoma burden in NK-cell-deficient mice as well. Therefore, the researchers believe 3AC may have a direct chemotherapeutic effect.

The team also found that intermittent 3AC treatment increased survival in lymphoma-bearing mice.

Treated mice had significantly longer survival than control mice. And some of the treated mice had long-term survival with no evidence of tumor burden, which suggests the treatment could be curative.

Additional experiments revealed that both NK cells and T cells were required to induce long-term survival in the lymphoma-bearing mice.

Finally, the researchers found evidence to suggest that 3AC treatment triggered “immunological memory capable of sustained and protective antitumor response that prevents relapse.”

The team infused hematolymphoid cells from either a naïve donor mouse or a lymphoma-challenged, 3AC-treated, long-term-surviving donor mouse into naïve host mice. The host mice were then challenged with RMA-Rae1 cells but didn’t receive 3AC.

Mice that received cells from the 3AC-treated donors had significantly better survival than mice that received cells from naive donors.

Based on these results, the researchers concluded that intermittent SHIP1 inhibition may be effective for treating and preventing relapse of T-cell lymphoma and other cancers.

Image by Joshua Stokes

Researchers have reported successful inhibition of the phosphatase SHIP1, which may be an effective approach for treating T-cell lymphoma.

The team found that intermittent treatment with a SHIP1 inhibitor prevented the immune exhaustion observed with SHIP1 deletion.

Intermittent SHIP1 inhibition enhanced the antitumor activity of natural killer (NK) cells and T cells in a mouse model of T-cell lymphoma.

The treatment also appeared to have a direct chemotherapeutic effect and induced immunological memory against lymphoma cells.

Matthew Gumbleton, MD, of SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York, and his colleagues reported these results in Science Signaling.

The researchers noted that previous efforts to inhibit SHIP1 have yielded disappointing results. Mice engineered to lack the SHIP1 gene had poorly responsive immune systems, potentially because overactivated cells became exhausted.

Dr Gumbleton and his colleagues found they could overcome this problem by administering a SHIP1 inhibitor—3-a-aminocholestane (3AC)—in a pulsed regimen of 2 consecutive treatment days per week.

The team tested this regimen in mouse models of colorectal cancer and T-cell lymphoma (RMA-Rae1).

In the lymphoma model, intermittent 3AC treatment increased the responsiveness of T cells and NK cells.

The treatment significantly increased the number of NK cells at the tumor site and the terminal maturation of the peripheral NK-cell compartment.

3AC also enhanced FasL-Fas–mediated killing of lymphoma cells. (NK cells induce apoptosis of target cells via Fas-FasL signaling.)

However, 3AC treatment reduced lymphoma burden in NK-cell-deficient mice as well. Therefore, the researchers believe 3AC may have a direct chemotherapeutic effect.

The team also found that intermittent 3AC treatment increased survival in lymphoma-bearing mice.

Treated mice had significantly longer survival than control mice. And some of the treated mice had long-term survival with no evidence of tumor burden, which suggests the treatment could be curative.

Additional experiments revealed that both NK cells and T cells were required to induce long-term survival in the lymphoma-bearing mice.

Finally, the researchers found evidence to suggest that 3AC treatment triggered “immunological memory capable of sustained and protective antitumor response that prevents relapse.”

The team infused hematolymphoid cells from either a naïve donor mouse or a lymphoma-challenged, 3AC-treated, long-term-surviving donor mouse into naïve host mice. The host mice were then challenged with RMA-Rae1 cells but didn’t receive 3AC.

Mice that received cells from the 3AC-treated donors had significantly better survival than mice that received cells from naive donors.

Based on these results, the researchers concluded that intermittent SHIP1 inhibition may be effective for treating and preventing relapse of T-cell lymphoma and other cancers.

Image by Joshua Stokes

Researchers have reported successful inhibition of the phosphatase SHIP1, which may be an effective approach for treating T-cell lymphoma.

The team found that intermittent treatment with a SHIP1 inhibitor prevented the immune exhaustion observed with SHIP1 deletion.

Intermittent SHIP1 inhibition enhanced the antitumor activity of natural killer (NK) cells and T cells in a mouse model of T-cell lymphoma.

The treatment also appeared to have a direct chemotherapeutic effect and induced immunological memory against lymphoma cells.

Matthew Gumbleton, MD, of SUNY Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York, and his colleagues reported these results in Science Signaling.

The researchers noted that previous efforts to inhibit SHIP1 have yielded disappointing results. Mice engineered to lack the SHIP1 gene had poorly responsive immune systems, potentially because overactivated cells became exhausted.

Dr Gumbleton and his colleagues found they could overcome this problem by administering a SHIP1 inhibitor—3-a-aminocholestane (3AC)—in a pulsed regimen of 2 consecutive treatment days per week.

The team tested this regimen in mouse models of colorectal cancer and T-cell lymphoma (RMA-Rae1).

In the lymphoma model, intermittent 3AC treatment increased the responsiveness of T cells and NK cells.

The treatment significantly increased the number of NK cells at the tumor site and the terminal maturation of the peripheral NK-cell compartment.

3AC also enhanced FasL-Fas–mediated killing of lymphoma cells. (NK cells induce apoptosis of target cells via Fas-FasL signaling.)

However, 3AC treatment reduced lymphoma burden in NK-cell-deficient mice as well. Therefore, the researchers believe 3AC may have a direct chemotherapeutic effect.

The team also found that intermittent 3AC treatment increased survival in lymphoma-bearing mice.

Treated mice had significantly longer survival than control mice. And some of the treated mice had long-term survival with no evidence of tumor burden, which suggests the treatment could be curative.

Additional experiments revealed that both NK cells and T cells were required to induce long-term survival in the lymphoma-bearing mice.

Finally, the researchers found evidence to suggest that 3AC treatment triggered “immunological memory capable of sustained and protective antitumor response that prevents relapse.”

The team infused hematolymphoid cells from either a naïve donor mouse or a lymphoma-challenged, 3AC-treated, long-term-surviving donor mouse into naïve host mice. The host mice were then challenged with RMA-Rae1 cells but didn’t receive 3AC.

Mice that received cells from the 3AC-treated donors had significantly better survival than mice that received cells from naive donors.

Based on these results, the researchers concluded that intermittent SHIP1 inhibition may be effective for treating and preventing relapse of T-cell lymphoma and other cancers.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter saying the agency cannot approve MYL-1401H, a proposed biosimilar of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta).

Biocon and Mylan are seeking approval of MYL-1401H to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving chemotherapy to treat non-myeloid malignancies.

Biocon and Mylan filed the biologics license application for MYL-1401H in February.

The FDA had planned to issue a decision on the application by October 9.

Biocon and Mylan said the FDA’s complete response letter relates to a pending update to the application. The update involves chemistry manufacturing and control data from facility requalification activities after recent plant modifications.

The complete response letter did not raise any questions on the biosimilarity of MYL-1401H, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, clinical data, or immunogenicity. (Results of a phase 3 study presented at ESMO 2016 Congress suggested MYL-1401H is equivalent to Neulasta.)

Biocon and Mylan said they do not expect the complete response letter for MYL-1401H to impact the commercial launch timing of the drug in the US. The companies said they are committed to working with the FDA to resolve the issues outlined in the letter.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter saying the agency cannot approve MYL-1401H, a proposed biosimilar of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta).

Biocon and Mylan are seeking approval of MYL-1401H to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving chemotherapy to treat non-myeloid malignancies.

Biocon and Mylan filed the biologics license application for MYL-1401H in February.

The FDA had planned to issue a decision on the application by October 9.

Biocon and Mylan said the FDA’s complete response letter relates to a pending update to the application. The update involves chemistry manufacturing and control data from facility requalification activities after recent plant modifications.

The complete response letter did not raise any questions on the biosimilarity of MYL-1401H, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, clinical data, or immunogenicity. (Results of a phase 3 study presented at ESMO 2016 Congress suggested MYL-1401H is equivalent to Neulasta.)

Biocon and Mylan said they do not expect the complete response letter for MYL-1401H to impact the commercial launch timing of the drug in the US. The companies said they are committed to working with the FDA to resolve the issues outlined in the letter.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter saying the agency cannot approve MYL-1401H, a proposed biosimilar of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta).

Biocon and Mylan are seeking approval of MYL-1401H to reduce the duration of neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in adults receiving chemotherapy to treat non-myeloid malignancies.

Biocon and Mylan filed the biologics license application for MYL-1401H in February.

The FDA had planned to issue a decision on the application by October 9.

Biocon and Mylan said the FDA’s complete response letter relates to a pending update to the application. The update involves chemistry manufacturing and control data from facility requalification activities after recent plant modifications.

The complete response letter did not raise any questions on the biosimilarity of MYL-1401H, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, clinical data, or immunogenicity. (Results of a phase 3 study presented at ESMO 2016 Congress suggested MYL-1401H is equivalent to Neulasta.)

Biocon and Mylan said they do not expect the complete response letter for MYL-1401H to impact the commercial launch timing of the drug in the US. The companies said they are committed to working with the FDA to resolve the issues outlined in the letter.

Photo by Larry Young

Research published in Cell has revealed 150 genetic drivers of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Among these drivers are 27 genes newly implicated in DLBCL, 35 functional oncogenes, and 9 genes that can be targeted with existing drugs.

Researchers used these findings to create a prognostic model that, they say, outperformed existing risk predictors in DLBCL.

“This work provides a comprehensive road map in terms of research and clinical priorities,” said study author Sandeep Dave, MD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

“We have very good data now to pursue new and existing therapies that might target the genetic mutations we identified. Additionally, this data could also be used to develop genetic markers that steer patients to therapies that would be most effective.”

Dr Dave and his colleagues began this research by analyzing tumor samples from 1001 patients who had been diagnosed with DLBCL over the past decade and were treated at 12 institutions around the world. There were 313 patients with ABC DLBCL, 331 with GCB DLBCL, and the rest were unclassified DLBCLs.

Using whole-exome sequencing, the researchers pinpointed 150 driver genes that were recurrently mutated in the DLBCL patients. This included 27 genes that, the researchers believe, had never before been implicated in DLBCL.

The team also found that ABC and GCB DLBCLs “shared the vast majority of driver genes at statistically indistinguishable frequencies.”

However, there were 20 genes that were differentially mutated between the 2 groups. For instance, EZH2, SGK1, GNA13, SOCS1, STAT6, and TNFRSF14 were more frequently mutated in GCB DLBCLs. And ETV6, MYD88, PIM1, and TBL1XR1 were more frequently mutated in ABC DLBCLs.

Essential genes

To identify genes essential to the development and maintenance of DLBCL, the researchers used CRISPR. The team knocked out genes in 6 cell lines—3 ABC DLBCLs (LY3, TMD8, and HBL1), 2 GCB DLBCLs (SUDHL4 and Pfeiffer), and 1 Burkitt lymphoma (BJAB) that phenotypically resembles GCB DLBCL.

This revealed 1956 essential genes. Knocking out these genes resulted in a significant decrease in cell fitness in at least 1 cell line.

The work also revealed 35 driver genes that, when knocked out, resulted in decreased viability of DLBCL cells, which classified them as functional oncogenes.

The researchers found that knockout of EBF1, IRF4, CARD11, MYD88, and IKBKB was selectively lethal in ABC DLBCL. And knockout of ZBTB7A, XPO1, TGFBR2, and PTPN6 was selectively lethal in GCB DLBCL.

In addition, the team noted that 9 of the driver genes are direct targets of drugs that are already approved or under investigation in clinical trials—MTOR, BCL2, SF3B1, SYK, PIM2, PIK3R1, XPO1, MCL1, and BTK.

Patient outcomes

The researchers also looked at the driver genes in the context of patient outcomes. The team found that mutations in MYC, CD79B, and ZFAT were strongly associated with poorer survival, while mutations in NF1 and SGK1 were associated with more favorable survival.

Mutations in KLHL14, BTG1, PAX5, and CDKN2A were associated with significantly poorer survival in ABC DLBCL, while mutations in CREBBP were associated with favorable survival in ABC DLBCL.

In GCB DLBCL, mutations in NFKBIA and NCOR1 were associated with poorer prognosis, while mutations in EZH2, MYD88, and ARID5B were associated with better prognosis.

Finally, the researchers developed a prognostic model based on combinations of genetic markers (the 150 driver genes) and gene expression markers (cell of origin, MYC, and BCL2).

The team found their prognostic model could predict survival more effectively than the International Prognostic Index, cell of origin alone, and MYC and BCL2 expression alone or together.

Photo by Larry Young

Research published in Cell has revealed 150 genetic drivers of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Among these drivers are 27 genes newly implicated in DLBCL, 35 functional oncogenes, and 9 genes that can be targeted with existing drugs.

Researchers used these findings to create a prognostic model that, they say, outperformed existing risk predictors in DLBCL.

“This work provides a comprehensive road map in terms of research and clinical priorities,” said study author Sandeep Dave, MD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

“We have very good data now to pursue new and existing therapies that might target the genetic mutations we identified. Additionally, this data could also be used to develop genetic markers that steer patients to therapies that would be most effective.”

Dr Dave and his colleagues began this research by analyzing tumor samples from 1001 patients who had been diagnosed with DLBCL over the past decade and were treated at 12 institutions around the world. There were 313 patients with ABC DLBCL, 331 with GCB DLBCL, and the rest were unclassified DLBCLs.

Using whole-exome sequencing, the researchers pinpointed 150 driver genes that were recurrently mutated in the DLBCL patients. This included 27 genes that, the researchers believe, had never before been implicated in DLBCL.

The team also found that ABC and GCB DLBCLs “shared the vast majority of driver genes at statistically indistinguishable frequencies.”

However, there were 20 genes that were differentially mutated between the 2 groups. For instance, EZH2, SGK1, GNA13, SOCS1, STAT6, and TNFRSF14 were more frequently mutated in GCB DLBCLs. And ETV6, MYD88, PIM1, and TBL1XR1 were more frequently mutated in ABC DLBCLs.

Essential genes

To identify genes essential to the development and maintenance of DLBCL, the researchers used CRISPR. The team knocked out genes in 6 cell lines—3 ABC DLBCLs (LY3, TMD8, and HBL1), 2 GCB DLBCLs (SUDHL4 and Pfeiffer), and 1 Burkitt lymphoma (BJAB) that phenotypically resembles GCB DLBCL.

This revealed 1956 essential genes. Knocking out these genes resulted in a significant decrease in cell fitness in at least 1 cell line.

The work also revealed 35 driver genes that, when knocked out, resulted in decreased viability of DLBCL cells, which classified them as functional oncogenes.

The researchers found that knockout of EBF1, IRF4, CARD11, MYD88, and IKBKB was selectively lethal in ABC DLBCL. And knockout of ZBTB7A, XPO1, TGFBR2, and PTPN6 was selectively lethal in GCB DLBCL.

In addition, the team noted that 9 of the driver genes are direct targets of drugs that are already approved or under investigation in clinical trials—MTOR, BCL2, SF3B1, SYK, PIM2, PIK3R1, XPO1, MCL1, and BTK.

Patient outcomes

The researchers also looked at the driver genes in the context of patient outcomes. The team found that mutations in MYC, CD79B, and ZFAT were strongly associated with poorer survival, while mutations in NF1 and SGK1 were associated with more favorable survival.

Mutations in KLHL14, BTG1, PAX5, and CDKN2A were associated with significantly poorer survival in ABC DLBCL, while mutations in CREBBP were associated with favorable survival in ABC DLBCL.

In GCB DLBCL, mutations in NFKBIA and NCOR1 were associated with poorer prognosis, while mutations in EZH2, MYD88, and ARID5B were associated with better prognosis.

Finally, the researchers developed a prognostic model based on combinations of genetic markers (the 150 driver genes) and gene expression markers (cell of origin, MYC, and BCL2).

The team found their prognostic model could predict survival more effectively than the International Prognostic Index, cell of origin alone, and MYC and BCL2 expression alone or together.

Photo by Larry Young

Research published in Cell has revealed 150 genetic drivers of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

Among these drivers are 27 genes newly implicated in DLBCL, 35 functional oncogenes, and 9 genes that can be targeted with existing drugs.

Researchers used these findings to create a prognostic model that, they say, outperformed existing risk predictors in DLBCL.

“This work provides a comprehensive road map in terms of research and clinical priorities,” said study author Sandeep Dave, MD, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

“We have very good data now to pursue new and existing therapies that might target the genetic mutations we identified. Additionally, this data could also be used to develop genetic markers that steer patients to therapies that would be most effective.”

Dr Dave and his colleagues began this research by analyzing tumor samples from 1001 patients who had been diagnosed with DLBCL over the past decade and were treated at 12 institutions around the world. There were 313 patients with ABC DLBCL, 331 with GCB DLBCL, and the rest were unclassified DLBCLs.

Using whole-exome sequencing, the researchers pinpointed 150 driver genes that were recurrently mutated in the DLBCL patients. This included 27 genes that, the researchers believe, had never before been implicated in DLBCL.

The team also found that ABC and GCB DLBCLs “shared the vast majority of driver genes at statistically indistinguishable frequencies.”

However, there were 20 genes that were differentially mutated between the 2 groups. For instance, EZH2, SGK1, GNA13, SOCS1, STAT6, and TNFRSF14 were more frequently mutated in GCB DLBCLs. And ETV6, MYD88, PIM1, and TBL1XR1 were more frequently mutated in ABC DLBCLs.

Essential genes

To identify genes essential to the development and maintenance of DLBCL, the researchers used CRISPR. The team knocked out genes in 6 cell lines—3 ABC DLBCLs (LY3, TMD8, and HBL1), 2 GCB DLBCLs (SUDHL4 and Pfeiffer), and 1 Burkitt lymphoma (BJAB) that phenotypically resembles GCB DLBCL.

This revealed 1956 essential genes. Knocking out these genes resulted in a significant decrease in cell fitness in at least 1 cell line.

The work also revealed 35 driver genes that, when knocked out, resulted in decreased viability of DLBCL cells, which classified them as functional oncogenes.

The researchers found that knockout of EBF1, IRF4, CARD11, MYD88, and IKBKB was selectively lethal in ABC DLBCL. And knockout of ZBTB7A, XPO1, TGFBR2, and PTPN6 was selectively lethal in GCB DLBCL.

In addition, the team noted that 9 of the driver genes are direct targets of drugs that are already approved or under investigation in clinical trials—MTOR, BCL2, SF3B1, SYK, PIM2, PIK3R1, XPO1, MCL1, and BTK.

Patient outcomes

The researchers also looked at the driver genes in the context of patient outcomes. The team found that mutations in MYC, CD79B, and ZFAT were strongly associated with poorer survival, while mutations in NF1 and SGK1 were associated with more favorable survival.

Mutations in KLHL14, BTG1, PAX5, and CDKN2A were associated with significantly poorer survival in ABC DLBCL, while mutations in CREBBP were associated with favorable survival in ABC DLBCL.

In GCB DLBCL, mutations in NFKBIA and NCOR1 were associated with poorer prognosis, while mutations in EZH2, MYD88, and ARID5B were associated with better prognosis.

Finally, the researchers developed a prognostic model based on combinations of genetic markers (the 150 driver genes) and gene expression markers (cell of origin, MYC, and BCL2).

The team found their prognostic model could predict survival more effectively than the International Prognostic Index, cell of origin alone, and MYC and BCL2 expression alone or together.

Photo courtesy of NIH

Primary care may not meet the healthcare needs of cancer survivors in the US, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Researchers examined 12 advanced primary care practices selected from a national registry of “workforce innovators” and found that none of these practices had a comprehensive survivorship care program in place.

In addition, there were 3 main barriers to survivorship care—not treating cancer survivors as a distinct population, limitations of electronic health records, and a lack of information and guidance for clinicians.

“This is troubling because these are highly innovative practices that have a national reputation,” said study author Benjamin Crabtree, PhD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues evaluated survivorship care* at the 12 practices, which were based in Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Over nearly 2 years, the team spent 10 to 12 days observing each of the practices and interviewing clinicians and administrators.

In this way, the researchers identified 3 main barriers to integrating survivorship care into primary medicine.

Barrier 1

The first barrier was that clinicians did not treat cancer survivors as a distinct population or clinical category.

“There is no diagnosis code for ‘cancer survivor’ that can be entered into the medical record, which is important if you want physicians to pay attention,” Dr Crabtree said.

Some of the clinicians interviewed said their care was comprehensive enough to address the needs of all patients. Other clinicians did not understand what survivorship care entails.

Barrier 2

The second barrier was that electronic health record systems didn’t support survivorship care.

Clinicians reported an inability to identify patients with a history of cancer. Even if a patient’s cancer history was included in his or her record, it might take searching through multiple screens to find the information.

In addition, medical records were sometimes lost as patients changed clinicians over the years, which left it up to patients to report their cancer histories.

Barrier 3

The third barrier was that clinicians did not receive adequate information or guidance for follow-up care of cancer survivors.

Although some of the practices received cancer-related information about their patients, it was considered “inadequate” or “not actionable.”

Clinicians expressed concerns about their knowledge gaps in cancer care and the need to monitor changing information in oncology.

“There is nothing in the residency curriculum about cancer survivorship,” Dr Crabtree said. “There is also nothing in Continuing Medical Education courses. It’s just not there.”

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues believe these barriers must be addressed so that comprehensive cancer survivorship services can move to the forefront of primary care.

* Survivorship care includes checking for cancer recurrence, monitoring long-term effects of radiation and chemotherapy, and assessing a patient’s psychological well-being.

Photo courtesy of NIH

Primary care may not meet the healthcare needs of cancer survivors in the US, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Researchers examined 12 advanced primary care practices selected from a national registry of “workforce innovators” and found that none of these practices had a comprehensive survivorship care program in place.

In addition, there were 3 main barriers to survivorship care—not treating cancer survivors as a distinct population, limitations of electronic health records, and a lack of information and guidance for clinicians.

“This is troubling because these are highly innovative practices that have a national reputation,” said study author Benjamin Crabtree, PhD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues evaluated survivorship care* at the 12 practices, which were based in Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Over nearly 2 years, the team spent 10 to 12 days observing each of the practices and interviewing clinicians and administrators.

In this way, the researchers identified 3 main barriers to integrating survivorship care into primary medicine.

Barrier 1

The first barrier was that clinicians did not treat cancer survivors as a distinct population or clinical category.

“There is no diagnosis code for ‘cancer survivor’ that can be entered into the medical record, which is important if you want physicians to pay attention,” Dr Crabtree said.

Some of the clinicians interviewed said their care was comprehensive enough to address the needs of all patients. Other clinicians did not understand what survivorship care entails.

Barrier 2

The second barrier was that electronic health record systems didn’t support survivorship care.

Clinicians reported an inability to identify patients with a history of cancer. Even if a patient’s cancer history was included in his or her record, it might take searching through multiple screens to find the information.

In addition, medical records were sometimes lost as patients changed clinicians over the years, which left it up to patients to report their cancer histories.

Barrier 3

The third barrier was that clinicians did not receive adequate information or guidance for follow-up care of cancer survivors.

Although some of the practices received cancer-related information about their patients, it was considered “inadequate” or “not actionable.”

Clinicians expressed concerns about their knowledge gaps in cancer care and the need to monitor changing information in oncology.

“There is nothing in the residency curriculum about cancer survivorship,” Dr Crabtree said. “There is also nothing in Continuing Medical Education courses. It’s just not there.”

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues believe these barriers must be addressed so that comprehensive cancer survivorship services can move to the forefront of primary care.

* Survivorship care includes checking for cancer recurrence, monitoring long-term effects of radiation and chemotherapy, and assessing a patient’s psychological well-being.

Photo courtesy of NIH

Primary care may not meet the healthcare needs of cancer survivors in the US, according to research published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Researchers examined 12 advanced primary care practices selected from a national registry of “workforce innovators” and found that none of these practices had a comprehensive survivorship care program in place.

In addition, there were 3 main barriers to survivorship care—not treating cancer survivors as a distinct population, limitations of electronic health records, and a lack of information and guidance for clinicians.

“This is troubling because these are highly innovative practices that have a national reputation,” said study author Benjamin Crabtree, PhD, of Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues evaluated survivorship care* at the 12 practices, which were based in Colorado, Illinois, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Over nearly 2 years, the team spent 10 to 12 days observing each of the practices and interviewing clinicians and administrators.

In this way, the researchers identified 3 main barriers to integrating survivorship care into primary medicine.

Barrier 1

The first barrier was that clinicians did not treat cancer survivors as a distinct population or clinical category.

“There is no diagnosis code for ‘cancer survivor’ that can be entered into the medical record, which is important if you want physicians to pay attention,” Dr Crabtree said.

Some of the clinicians interviewed said their care was comprehensive enough to address the needs of all patients. Other clinicians did not understand what survivorship care entails.

Barrier 2

The second barrier was that electronic health record systems didn’t support survivorship care.

Clinicians reported an inability to identify patients with a history of cancer. Even if a patient’s cancer history was included in his or her record, it might take searching through multiple screens to find the information.

In addition, medical records were sometimes lost as patients changed clinicians over the years, which left it up to patients to report their cancer histories.

Barrier 3

The third barrier was that clinicians did not receive adequate information or guidance for follow-up care of cancer survivors.

Although some of the practices received cancer-related information about their patients, it was considered “inadequate” or “not actionable.”

Clinicians expressed concerns about their knowledge gaps in cancer care and the need to monitor changing information in oncology.

“There is nothing in the residency curriculum about cancer survivorship,” Dr Crabtree said. “There is also nothing in Continuing Medical Education courses. It’s just not there.”

Dr Crabtree and his colleagues believe these barriers must be addressed so that comprehensive cancer survivorship services can move to the forefront of primary care.

* Survivorship care includes checking for cancer recurrence, monitoring long-term effects of radiation and chemotherapy, and assessing a patient’s psychological well-being.

In a head-to-head trial of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in first-line therapy for follicular lymphoma, obinutuzumab-based chemotherapy was associated with slightly but significantly better progression-free survival than rituximab-based therapy, but at the cost of higher toxicities, including severe adverse events.

Among 1,202 patients with follicular lymphoma followed for a median of 34.5 months, the estimated 3-year rate of progression-free survival (PFS) for patients randomized to obinutuzumab-based chemotherapy and maintenance was 80%, compared with 73.3% for patients randomized to rituximab chemotherapy and maintenance. Response rates and overall survival were similar between the treatment groups, Robert Marcus, MB, BS, of King’s College Hospital, London, and his coinvestigators reported in the GALLIUM trial.

In a head-to-head trial of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in first-line therapy for follicular lymphoma, obinutuzumab-based chemotherapy was associated with slightly but significantly better progression-free survival than rituximab-based therapy, but at the cost of higher toxicities, including severe adverse events.

Among 1,202 patients with follicular lymphoma followed for a median of 34.5 months, the estimated 3-year rate of progression-free survival (PFS) for patients randomized to obinutuzumab-based chemotherapy and maintenance was 80%, compared with 73.3% for patients randomized to rituximab chemotherapy and maintenance. Response rates and overall survival were similar between the treatment groups, Robert Marcus, MB, BS, of King’s College Hospital, London, and his coinvestigators reported in the GALLIUM trial.

In a head-to-head trial of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in first-line therapy for follicular lymphoma, obinutuzumab-based chemotherapy was associated with slightly but significantly better progression-free survival than rituximab-based therapy, but at the cost of higher toxicities, including severe adverse events.

Among 1,202 patients with follicular lymphoma followed for a median of 34.5 months, the estimated 3-year rate of progression-free survival (PFS) for patients randomized to obinutuzumab-based chemotherapy and maintenance was 80%, compared with 73.3% for patients randomized to rituximab chemotherapy and maintenance. Response rates and overall survival were similar between the treatment groups, Robert Marcus, MB, BS, of King’s College Hospital, London, and his coinvestigators reported in the GALLIUM trial.

A rare type of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has features that are similar to those of Castleman disease, according to a recent report based on three patient cases.

Lymph node biopsies for these patients initially indicated histologic features consistent with those of plasma cell (PC)-type Castleman disease, reported Takuro Igawa, MD, PhD, of Okayama (Japan) University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, and his coauthors. Further work-up, including flow cytometric analysis and cyclin D1 immunostaining, showed features consistent with those of MCL.

“This rare type of MCL can mimic Castleman disease in the clinical setting and upon histological examination,” Dr. Igawa and his colleagues wrote (Pathol Res Pract. 2017 Sep 18. pii: S0344-0338[17]30684-2. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2017.09.015). “These confusing characteristics can make the diagnosis challenging, and careful flow cytometric analysis is recommended when a histopathological diagnosis is made.”

The patients in the study, all male, were 51, 74, and 81 years of age. Each presented with systemic lymphadenopathy, along with abnormal laboratory findings that according to the investigators are not usually associated with B-cell lymphomas such as MCL, including anemia, polyclonal IgG hypergammaglobulinemia, and elevated levels of C-reactive protein.

In lymph node biopsy specimens, the MCL component was “masked by histological features of PC-type Castleman disease” such as interfollicular plasmacytosis and atrophic germinal centers, the researchers wrote.

However, further pathologic investigations revealed features that were “essential to distinguish these 3 cases of MCL from PC-type Castleman disease,” they added.

In particular, an abnormal B-cell population was found using flow cytometric analysis, while subsequent cyclin D1 immunostaining in all three cases showed abnormal B-cells primarily in the mantle zone that were positive for CD20 and CD5, both typically expressed by MCL, along with SOX11, which is an “excellent diagnostic marker for MCL, including atypical MCL,” the investigators wrote.

These case reports also provide some evidence that interleukin-6 (IL-6), which is thought to be a driver of Castleman disease, might also be implicated in the pathogenesis of this rare MCL variant. the researchers found that all three cases had positive IL-6 staining in the interfollicular areas.

If further studies confirm the role of IL-6 in this rare setting, “specific treatments other than chemotherapy could potentially be used for patients with MCL with features of Castleman disease, such as an anti-IL-6 receptor antibody (tocilizumab), which is already used for patients with Castleman disease,” they said.

A rare type of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has features that are similar to those of Castleman disease, according to a recent report based on three patient cases.

Lymph node biopsies for these patients initially indicated histologic features consistent with those of plasma cell (PC)-type Castleman disease, reported Takuro Igawa, MD, PhD, of Okayama (Japan) University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, and his coauthors. Further work-up, including flow cytometric analysis and cyclin D1 immunostaining, showed features consistent with those of MCL.

“This rare type of MCL can mimic Castleman disease in the clinical setting and upon histological examination,” Dr. Igawa and his colleagues wrote (Pathol Res Pract. 2017 Sep 18. pii: S0344-0338[17]30684-2. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2017.09.015). “These confusing characteristics can make the diagnosis challenging, and careful flow cytometric analysis is recommended when a histopathological diagnosis is made.”

The patients in the study, all male, were 51, 74, and 81 years of age. Each presented with systemic lymphadenopathy, along with abnormal laboratory findings that according to the investigators are not usually associated with B-cell lymphomas such as MCL, including anemia, polyclonal IgG hypergammaglobulinemia, and elevated levels of C-reactive protein.

In lymph node biopsy specimens, the MCL component was “masked by histological features of PC-type Castleman disease” such as interfollicular plasmacytosis and atrophic germinal centers, the researchers wrote.

However, further pathologic investigations revealed features that were “essential to distinguish these 3 cases of MCL from PC-type Castleman disease,” they added.

In particular, an abnormal B-cell population was found using flow cytometric analysis, while subsequent cyclin D1 immunostaining in all three cases showed abnormal B-cells primarily in the mantle zone that were positive for CD20 and CD5, both typically expressed by MCL, along with SOX11, which is an “excellent diagnostic marker for MCL, including atypical MCL,” the investigators wrote.

These case reports also provide some evidence that interleukin-6 (IL-6), which is thought to be a driver of Castleman disease, might also be implicated in the pathogenesis of this rare MCL variant. the researchers found that all three cases had positive IL-6 staining in the interfollicular areas.

If further studies confirm the role of IL-6 in this rare setting, “specific treatments other than chemotherapy could potentially be used for patients with MCL with features of Castleman disease, such as an anti-IL-6 receptor antibody (tocilizumab), which is already used for patients with Castleman disease,” they said.

A rare type of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has features that are similar to those of Castleman disease, according to a recent report based on three patient cases.

Lymph node biopsies for these patients initially indicated histologic features consistent with those of plasma cell (PC)-type Castleman disease, reported Takuro Igawa, MD, PhD, of Okayama (Japan) University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, and his coauthors. Further work-up, including flow cytometric analysis and cyclin D1 immunostaining, showed features consistent with those of MCL.

“This rare type of MCL can mimic Castleman disease in the clinical setting and upon histological examination,” Dr. Igawa and his colleagues wrote (Pathol Res Pract. 2017 Sep 18. pii: S0344-0338[17]30684-2. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2017.09.015). “These confusing characteristics can make the diagnosis challenging, and careful flow cytometric analysis is recommended when a histopathological diagnosis is made.”

The patients in the study, all male, were 51, 74, and 81 years of age. Each presented with systemic lymphadenopathy, along with abnormal laboratory findings that according to the investigators are not usually associated with B-cell lymphomas such as MCL, including anemia, polyclonal IgG hypergammaglobulinemia, and elevated levels of C-reactive protein.

In lymph node biopsy specimens, the MCL component was “masked by histological features of PC-type Castleman disease” such as interfollicular plasmacytosis and atrophic germinal centers, the researchers wrote.

However, further pathologic investigations revealed features that were “essential to distinguish these 3 cases of MCL from PC-type Castleman disease,” they added.

In particular, an abnormal B-cell population was found using flow cytometric analysis, while subsequent cyclin D1 immunostaining in all three cases showed abnormal B-cells primarily in the mantle zone that were positive for CD20 and CD5, both typically expressed by MCL, along with SOX11, which is an “excellent diagnostic marker for MCL, including atypical MCL,” the investigators wrote.

These case reports also provide some evidence that interleukin-6 (IL-6), which is thought to be a driver of Castleman disease, might also be implicated in the pathogenesis of this rare MCL variant. the researchers found that all three cases had positive IL-6 staining in the interfollicular areas.

If further studies confirm the role of IL-6 in this rare setting, “specific treatments other than chemotherapy could potentially be used for patients with MCL with features of Castleman disease, such as an anti-IL-6 receptor antibody (tocilizumab), which is already used for patients with Castleman disease,” they said.

The combination of bortezomib, cladribine, and rituximab (VCR) was an effective treatment regimen for patients with CD20-positive mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (iNHL), based on results of a recent phase 2, open-label study.

The overall response rate was 92% in the single-center, 24-patient study. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 82% and 54%, respectively, for MCL and iNHL patients; PFS was 80% for treatment-naive patients and 57% for those with refractory/recalcitrant disease, according to Soham D. Puvvada, MD, of the University of Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson, and her associates.

Two-year overall survival was 91% for MCL and 69% for iNHL patients. Median time to progression was 34.5 months, and median PFS had not been reached at 2 years, according to the researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons

op@frontlinemedcom.com

The combination of bortezomib, cladribine, and rituximab (VCR) was an effective treatment regimen for patients with CD20-positive mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (iNHL), based on results of a recent phase 2, open-label study.

The overall response rate was 92% in the single-center, 24-patient study. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 82% and 54%, respectively, for MCL and iNHL patients; PFS was 80% for treatment-naive patients and 57% for those with refractory/recalcitrant disease, according to Soham D. Puvvada, MD, of the University of Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson, and her associates.

Two-year overall survival was 91% for MCL and 69% for iNHL patients. Median time to progression was 34.5 months, and median PFS had not been reached at 2 years, according to the researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons

op@frontlinemedcom.com

The combination of bortezomib, cladribine, and rituximab (VCR) was an effective treatment regimen for patients with CD20-positive mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) and indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (iNHL), based on results of a recent phase 2, open-label study.

The overall response rate was 92% in the single-center, 24-patient study. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 82% and 54%, respectively, for MCL and iNHL patients; PFS was 80% for treatment-naive patients and 57% for those with refractory/recalcitrant disease, according to Soham D. Puvvada, MD, of the University of Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson, and her associates.

Two-year overall survival was 91% for MCL and 69% for iNHL patients. Median time to progression was 34.5 months, and median PFS had not been reached at 2 years, according to the researchers.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/Nephron/Creative Commons

op@frontlinemedcom.com

Photo by Bill Branson

A study of cancer drugs approved by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013 showed that few hematology drugs were known to provide a benefit in overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) over existing treatments.

Of 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 3 drugs had been shown to provide a benefit in OS (for 3 indications) at the time of approval.

None of the other hematology drugs were known to provide an OS benefit even after a median follow-up of 5.4 years.

Two hematology drugs were shown to provide a benefit in QOL (for 2 indications) after approval, but none of the drugs were known to provide a QOL benefit at the time of approval.

These findings were published in The BMJ alongside a related editorial, feature article, and patient commentary.

All cancer drugs

Researchers analyzed reports on all cancer drug approvals by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013.

There were 48 drugs approved for 68 cancer indications during this period. Fifty-one of the indications were for solid tumor malignancies, and 17 were for hematologic malignancies.

For 24 indications (35%), research had demonstrated a significant improvement in OS at the time of the drugs’ approval. For 3 indications, an improvement in OS was demonstrated after approval.

There was a known improvement in QOL for 7 of the indications (10%) at the time of approval and for 5 indications after approval.

The median follow-up was 5.4 years (range, 3.3 years to 8.1 years).

Overall, there was a significant improvement in OS or QOL during the study period for 51% of the indications (35/68). For the other half (49%, n=33), it wasn’t clear if the drugs provide any benefits in OS or QOL.

All cancer trials

The 68 approvals of cancer drugs were supported by 72 clinical trials.

Sixty approvals (88%) were supported by at least 1 randomized, controlled trial. Eight approvals (12%) were based on a single-arm study. This included 6 of 10 conditional marketing authorizations and 2 of 58 regular marketing authorizations.

Eighteen of the approvals (26%) were supported by a pivotal study powered to evaluate OS as the primary endpoint. And 37 of the approvals (54%) had a supporting pivotal trial evaluating QOL, but results were not reported for 2 of these trials.

Hematology trials and drugs

Of the 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 4 were regular approvals, 5 were conditional approvals, and 8 had orphan drug designation.

The approvals were supported by data from 18 trials—13 randomized and 5 single-arm trials.

The study drug was compared to an active comparator in 9 of the trials. The drug was evaluated as an add-on treatment in 4 trials. And the drug was not compared to anything in 5 trials (the single-arm trials).

OS was the primary endpoint in 1 of the trials, and 17 trials had OS or QOL as a secondary endpoint.

There were 3 drugs that had demonstrated an OS benefit at the time of approval but no QOL benefit at any time:

• Decitabine used for first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in adults 65 and older who are ineligible for chemotherapy
• Pomalidomide in combination with dexamethasone as third-line therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM)
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

There were 2 drugs that had demonstrated a QOL benefit, only after approval, but they were not known to provide an OS benefit at any time:

• Nilotinib as a treatment for adults with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)
• Ofatumumab for CLL that is refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab

For the remaining drugs, there was no evidence of an OS or QOL benefit at any time during the period studied. The drugs included:

• Bortezomib given alone or in combination with doxorubicin or dexamethasone as second-line therapy for MM patients ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)
• Bortezomib plus dexamethasone with or without thalidomide as first-line therapy in MM patients eligible for HSCT
• Bosutinib as second- or third-line treatment of Ph+ CML (any phase)
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory, CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous HSCT or as third-line treatment for patients ineligible for autologous HSCT
• Dasatinib for first-line treatment of chronic phase, Ph+ CML
• Pixantrone for multiply relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Ponatinib for patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Ponatinib for patients with any phase of CML who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib/nilotinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Rituximab as maintenance after induction for patients with follicular lymphoma
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory CLL
• Temsirolimus for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
  

Photo by Bill Branson

A study of cancer drugs approved by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013 showed that few hematology drugs were known to provide a benefit in overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) over existing treatments.

Of 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 3 drugs had been shown to provide a benefit in OS (for 3 indications) at the time of approval.

None of the other hematology drugs were known to provide an OS benefit even after a median follow-up of 5.4 years.

Two hematology drugs were shown to provide a benefit in QOL (for 2 indications) after approval, but none of the drugs were known to provide a QOL benefit at the time of approval.

These findings were published in The BMJ alongside a related editorial, feature article, and patient commentary.

All cancer drugs

Researchers analyzed reports on all cancer drug approvals by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013.

There were 48 drugs approved for 68 cancer indications during this period. Fifty-one of the indications were for solid tumor malignancies, and 17 were for hematologic malignancies.

For 24 indications (35%), research had demonstrated a significant improvement in OS at the time of the drugs’ approval. For 3 indications, an improvement in OS was demonstrated after approval.

There was a known improvement in QOL for 7 of the indications (10%) at the time of approval and for 5 indications after approval.

The median follow-up was 5.4 years (range, 3.3 years to 8.1 years).

Overall, there was a significant improvement in OS or QOL during the study period for 51% of the indications (35/68). For the other half (49%, n=33), it wasn’t clear if the drugs provide any benefits in OS or QOL.

All cancer trials

The 68 approvals of cancer drugs were supported by 72 clinical trials.

Sixty approvals (88%) were supported by at least 1 randomized, controlled trial. Eight approvals (12%) were based on a single-arm study. This included 6 of 10 conditional marketing authorizations and 2 of 58 regular marketing authorizations.

Eighteen of the approvals (26%) were supported by a pivotal study powered to evaluate OS as the primary endpoint. And 37 of the approvals (54%) had a supporting pivotal trial evaluating QOL, but results were not reported for 2 of these trials.

Hematology trials and drugs

Of the 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 4 were regular approvals, 5 were conditional approvals, and 8 had orphan drug designation.

The approvals were supported by data from 18 trials—13 randomized and 5 single-arm trials.

The study drug was compared to an active comparator in 9 of the trials. The drug was evaluated as an add-on treatment in 4 trials. And the drug was not compared to anything in 5 trials (the single-arm trials).

OS was the primary endpoint in 1 of the trials, and 17 trials had OS or QOL as a secondary endpoint.

There were 3 drugs that had demonstrated an OS benefit at the time of approval but no QOL benefit at any time:

• Decitabine used for first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in adults 65 and older who are ineligible for chemotherapy
• Pomalidomide in combination with dexamethasone as third-line therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM)
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

There were 2 drugs that had demonstrated a QOL benefit, only after approval, but they were not known to provide an OS benefit at any time:

• Nilotinib as a treatment for adults with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)
• Ofatumumab for CLL that is refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab

For the remaining drugs, there was no evidence of an OS or QOL benefit at any time during the period studied. The drugs included:

• Bortezomib given alone or in combination with doxorubicin or dexamethasone as second-line therapy for MM patients ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)
• Bortezomib plus dexamethasone with or without thalidomide as first-line therapy in MM patients eligible for HSCT
• Bosutinib as second- or third-line treatment of Ph+ CML (any phase)
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory, CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous HSCT or as third-line treatment for patients ineligible for autologous HSCT
• Dasatinib for first-line treatment of chronic phase, Ph+ CML
• Pixantrone for multiply relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Ponatinib for patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Ponatinib for patients with any phase of CML who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib/nilotinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Rituximab as maintenance after induction for patients with follicular lymphoma
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory CLL
• Temsirolimus for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
  

Photo by Bill Branson

A study of cancer drugs approved by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013 showed that few hematology drugs were known to provide a benefit in overall survival (OS) or quality of life (QOL) over existing treatments.

Of 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 3 drugs had been shown to provide a benefit in OS (for 3 indications) at the time of approval.

None of the other hematology drugs were known to provide an OS benefit even after a median follow-up of 5.4 years.

Two hematology drugs were shown to provide a benefit in QOL (for 2 indications) after approval, but none of the drugs were known to provide a QOL benefit at the time of approval.

These findings were published in The BMJ alongside a related editorial, feature article, and patient commentary.

All cancer drugs

Researchers analyzed reports on all cancer drug approvals by the European Commission from 2009 to 2013.

There were 48 drugs approved for 68 cancer indications during this period. Fifty-one of the indications were for solid tumor malignancies, and 17 were for hematologic malignancies.

For 24 indications (35%), research had demonstrated a significant improvement in OS at the time of the drugs’ approval. For 3 indications, an improvement in OS was demonstrated after approval.

There was a known improvement in QOL for 7 of the indications (10%) at the time of approval and for 5 indications after approval.

The median follow-up was 5.4 years (range, 3.3 years to 8.1 years).

Overall, there was a significant improvement in OS or QOL during the study period for 51% of the indications (35/68). For the other half (49%, n=33), it wasn’t clear if the drugs provide any benefits in OS or QOL.

All cancer trials

The 68 approvals of cancer drugs were supported by 72 clinical trials.

Sixty approvals (88%) were supported by at least 1 randomized, controlled trial. Eight approvals (12%) were based on a single-arm study. This included 6 of 10 conditional marketing authorizations and 2 of 58 regular marketing authorizations.

Eighteen of the approvals (26%) were supported by a pivotal study powered to evaluate OS as the primary endpoint. And 37 of the approvals (54%) had a supporting pivotal trial evaluating QOL, but results were not reported for 2 of these trials.

Hematology trials and drugs

Of the 12 drugs approved for 17 hematology indications, 4 were regular approvals, 5 were conditional approvals, and 8 had orphan drug designation.

The approvals were supported by data from 18 trials—13 randomized and 5 single-arm trials.

The study drug was compared to an active comparator in 9 of the trials. The drug was evaluated as an add-on treatment in 4 trials. And the drug was not compared to anything in 5 trials (the single-arm trials).

OS was the primary endpoint in 1 of the trials, and 17 trials had OS or QOL as a secondary endpoint.

There were 3 drugs that had demonstrated an OS benefit at the time of approval but no QOL benefit at any time:

• Decitabine used for first-line treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in adults 65 and older who are ineligible for chemotherapy
• Pomalidomide in combination with dexamethasone as third-line therapy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM)
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for first-line treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

There were 2 drugs that had demonstrated a QOL benefit, only after approval, but they were not known to provide an OS benefit at any time:

• Nilotinib as a treatment for adults with newly diagnosed, chronic phase, Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia (CML)
• Ofatumumab for CLL that is refractory to fludarabine and alemtuzumab

For the remaining drugs, there was no evidence of an OS or QOL benefit at any time during the period studied. The drugs included:

• Bortezomib given alone or in combination with doxorubicin or dexamethasone as second-line therapy for MM patients ineligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)
• Bortezomib plus dexamethasone with or without thalidomide as first-line therapy in MM patients eligible for HSCT
• Bosutinib as second- or third-line treatment of Ph+ CML (any phase)
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma
• Brentuximab vedotin for relapsed or refractory, CD30+ Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous HSCT or as third-line treatment for patients ineligible for autologous HSCT
• Dasatinib for first-line treatment of chronic phase, Ph+ CML
• Pixantrone for multiply relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
• Ponatinib for patients with Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Ponatinib for patients with any phase of CML who are ineligible for imatinib or have disease that is resistant or intolerant to dasatinib/nilotinib or characterized by T315I mutation
• Rituximab as maintenance after induction for patients with follicular lymphoma
• Rituximab plus chemotherapy for relapsed or refractory CLL
• Temsirolimus for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma.
  

Research Hospital

New research suggests sperm banking may be underutilized by adolescent and young adult males with cancer who are at risk of infertility.

However, the study also showed that patients were more likely to attempt sperm banking if they were physically mature, met with fertility specialists, or their parents recommended sperm banking.

These findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Research has found that the majority of males who survive childhood cancer desire biological children,” said study author James Klosky, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

“Fertility preservation is also associated with a variety of benefits for survivors, including increased optimism about the future. While sperm banking is not for everyone, it is an effective method for preserving male fertility. Yet this study shows that sperm banking remains underutilized by at-risk patients with cancer.”

Dr Klosky and his colleagues surveyed 146 young males with cancer who were at risk of infertility. The researchers also surveyed 144 parents or guardians and 52 oncologists and other healthcare providers.

The patients’ mean age was 16.49 (range, 13.0-21.99). Diagnoses included leukemia and lymphoma (56.2%), solid tumor malignancies (37.7%), and brain tumors (6.2%).

Slightly more than half of the patients (53.4%, n=78) attempted sperm banking prior to starting treatment. Sixty-two, or 82.1%, of those who attempted sperm banking were successful.

In all, 43.8% of the patients successfully banked sperm.

Of the 68 patients who did not attempt sperm banking, 29 reported discussing the option with their families but deciding against it. Twenty-six patients indicated they did not believe sperm banking was necessary, and 9 patients were unsure what it was.

There were several factors that influenced the likelihood of patients making sperm collection attempts as well as successfully banking sperm.

In a multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with an increased likelihood of attempting to bank sperm:

• Meeting with a fertility specialist (odds ratio[OR]=29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P=0.007)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P=0.007)
• Higher Tanner stage (OR=5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P=0.003).

In another multivariable analysis, successful sperm banking was associated with:

• Patient history of masturbation (OR=5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P=0.025)
• Higher self-efficacy for banking coordination (OR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P=0.012)
• Medical team member recommending banking (OR=4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P=0.008)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P=0.010).

“These results highlight factors that providers can target to empower adolescents to actively participate in their own healthcare,” Dr Klosky said. “These decisions, which are typically made at the time of diagnosis, have high potential to affect their lives as survivors.”

Research Hospital

New research suggests sperm banking may be underutilized by adolescent and young adult males with cancer who are at risk of infertility.

However, the study also showed that patients were more likely to attempt sperm banking if they were physically mature, met with fertility specialists, or their parents recommended sperm banking.

These findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Research has found that the majority of males who survive childhood cancer desire biological children,” said study author James Klosky, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

“Fertility preservation is also associated with a variety of benefits for survivors, including increased optimism about the future. While sperm banking is not for everyone, it is an effective method for preserving male fertility. Yet this study shows that sperm banking remains underutilized by at-risk patients with cancer.”

Dr Klosky and his colleagues surveyed 146 young males with cancer who were at risk of infertility. The researchers also surveyed 144 parents or guardians and 52 oncologists and other healthcare providers.

The patients’ mean age was 16.49 (range, 13.0-21.99). Diagnoses included leukemia and lymphoma (56.2%), solid tumor malignancies (37.7%), and brain tumors (6.2%).

Slightly more than half of the patients (53.4%, n=78) attempted sperm banking prior to starting treatment. Sixty-two, or 82.1%, of those who attempted sperm banking were successful.

In all, 43.8% of the patients successfully banked sperm.

Of the 68 patients who did not attempt sperm banking, 29 reported discussing the option with their families but deciding against it. Twenty-six patients indicated they did not believe sperm banking was necessary, and 9 patients were unsure what it was.

There were several factors that influenced the likelihood of patients making sperm collection attempts as well as successfully banking sperm.

In a multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with an increased likelihood of attempting to bank sperm:

• Meeting with a fertility specialist (odds ratio[OR]=29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P=0.007)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P=0.007)
• Higher Tanner stage (OR=5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P=0.003).

In another multivariable analysis, successful sperm banking was associated with:

• Patient history of masturbation (OR=5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P=0.025)
• Higher self-efficacy for banking coordination (OR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P=0.012)
• Medical team member recommending banking (OR=4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P=0.008)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P=0.010).

“These results highlight factors that providers can target to empower adolescents to actively participate in their own healthcare,” Dr Klosky said. “These decisions, which are typically made at the time of diagnosis, have high potential to affect their lives as survivors.”

Research Hospital

New research suggests sperm banking may be underutilized by adolescent and young adult males with cancer who are at risk of infertility.

However, the study also showed that patients were more likely to attempt sperm banking if they were physically mature, met with fertility specialists, or their parents recommended sperm banking.

These findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“Research has found that the majority of males who survive childhood cancer desire biological children,” said study author James Klosky, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

“Fertility preservation is also associated with a variety of benefits for survivors, including increased optimism about the future. While sperm banking is not for everyone, it is an effective method for preserving male fertility. Yet this study shows that sperm banking remains underutilized by at-risk patients with cancer.”

Dr Klosky and his colleagues surveyed 146 young males with cancer who were at risk of infertility. The researchers also surveyed 144 parents or guardians and 52 oncologists and other healthcare providers.

The patients’ mean age was 16.49 (range, 13.0-21.99). Diagnoses included leukemia and lymphoma (56.2%), solid tumor malignancies (37.7%), and brain tumors (6.2%).

Slightly more than half of the patients (53.4%, n=78) attempted sperm banking prior to starting treatment. Sixty-two, or 82.1%, of those who attempted sperm banking were successful.

In all, 43.8% of the patients successfully banked sperm.

Of the 68 patients who did not attempt sperm banking, 29 reported discussing the option with their families but deciding against it. Twenty-six patients indicated they did not believe sperm banking was necessary, and 9 patients were unsure what it was.

There were several factors that influenced the likelihood of patients making sperm collection attempts as well as successfully banking sperm.

In a multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with an increased likelihood of attempting to bank sperm:

• Meeting with a fertility specialist (odds ratio[OR]=29.96; 95% CI, 2.48 to 361.41; P=0.007)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=12.30; 95% CI, 2.01 to 75.94; P=0.007)
• Higher Tanner stage (OR=5.42; 95% CI, 1.75 to 16.78; P=0.003).

In another multivariable analysis, successful sperm banking was associated with:

• Patient history of masturbation (OR=5.99; 95% CI, 1.25 to 28.50; P=0.025)
• Higher self-efficacy for banking coordination (OR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.45; P=0.012)
• Medical team member recommending banking (OR=4.26; 95% CI, 1.45 to 12.43; P=0.008)
• Parent recommending banking (OR=4.62; 95% CI, 1.46 to 14.73; P=0.010).

“These results highlight factors that providers can target to empower adolescents to actively participate in their own healthcare,” Dr Klosky said. “These decisions, which are typically made at the time of diagnosis, have high potential to affect their lives as survivors.”