Conference Coverage

Neoadjuvant therapy with intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has durable efficacy in advanced melanoma, according to a phase 2 trial reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

T-VEC is a modified virus that lyses tumor cells locally and induces a systemic immune response. In the phase 2 trial, neoadjuvant T-VEC plus surgery improved 3-year recurrence-free survival, when compared with immediate surgery, in patients with resectable melanoma.

“This is the first neoadjuvant trial for an approved oncolytic virus in melanoma and the largest randomized prospectively controlled neoadjuvant melanoma trial completed to date,” said investigator Reinhard Dummer, MD, of University Hospital Zürich.

The multicenter trial enrolled 150 patients with resectable stage IIIB–IV M1a melanoma (thereby including many with in-transit metastasis) who had at least one injectable lesion.

“This patient population is typically excluded from the trials that are published. Those trials typically focus on lymph node metastasis only,” Dr. Dummer noted.

The patients were randomized evenly to receive six doses over 12 weeks of intralesional T-VEC followed by surgical resection, or to the conventional approach of immediate surgical resection.
 

Survival results

The median follow-up for this interim analysis was 41.3 months.

The 3-year rate of recurrence-free survival, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 46.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.67; P = .043). The median duration of recurrence-free survival was 27.5 months and 5.4 months, respectively.

These results were comparable with results seen at 2 years, which were published in Annals of Oncology in 2019. The 2-year rate of recurrence-free survival was 50.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

“These patients appear to be in a plateau phase now,” Dr. Dummer remarked.

The 3-year rate of event-free survival, which excluded any events related to a delay of surgery, was 50.3% for T-VEC and 32.7% for immediate surgery (HR, 0.58, P = .015).

Findings for both outcomes were similar when analyses were repeated after removing events that occurred after receipt of therapy in the adjuvant or metastatic setting.

Finally, the 3-year rate of overall survival was 83.2% with T-VEC plus surgery and 71.6% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.54; P = .061). Respective 2-year values were 88.9% and 77.4% (HR, 0.49; P = .050).

In all, 50.7% of patients in the T-VEC group received subsequent anticancer therapy, compared with 76.8% in the immediate-surgery group. Respective values specifically for subsequent immunotherapy – usually immune checkpoint inhibitors – were 32.9% and 46.4%.

“I think this is a good argument that the effects we see on overall survival and recurrence-free survival are not caused by improved second-line treatments,” Dr. Dummer said.

No new safety signals emerged during the additional year of follow-up. The trial’s final analysis will be conducted after 5 years of follow-up.

“These results build upon the prior 2-year results to support the potential beneficial effect of neoadjuvant T-VEC on advanced resectable melanoma,” Dr. Dummer said.

“In general, if you compare this to the objective outcomes that we see with neoadjuvant ipilimumab-nivolumab, for example, the results do not look very attractive,” he acknowledged.

“However, we have to keep in mind that this is a difficult patient population,” he added, noting that many patients have in-transit metastases that would disqualify them from conventional neoadjuvant therapy. Also, cross-trial comparisons are complicated by the need to allow adjuvant therapy in patients who receive neoadjuvant therapy.

“I would say the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab should be more powerful, but T-VEC has some impact, and from my understanding, T-VEC would be a perfect partner for a combination, for example, with an anti–[programmed death 1] agent,” Dr. Dummer concluded.
 

‘Impressive’ data support more research

“Neoadjuvant approaches are gaining enthusiasm for patients with locally advanced disease that may not be amenable to simple excision or may require large disfiguring procedures,” said Howard L. Kaufman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, both in Boston, who was not involved in this study.

© Michael Hoetzel

“A treatment option that could induce tumor regression while also promoting immune responses against the tumor is attractive,” Dr. Kaufman added.

“I continue to be impressed with this clinical trial as it demonstrates a consistent improvement in recurrence-free survival, event-free survival, and overall survival for patients treated with neoadjuvant T-VEC and surgery, compared to those who undergo surgery alone,” he said in an interview. “Confirmation that the responses are now maintained for another year is an important milestone.”

Given the study’s fairly small size, large treatment differences would be needed to attain the observed statistical significance, and “this is why the data at 3 years of follow-up is so impressive,” Dr. Kaufman said.

However, benefit of T-VEC’s activity in inducing a systemic immune response may not become fully evident until the end of the trial.

“Overall survival at 5 years is the most relevant endpoint,” Dr. Kaufman maintained.

An important aspect of the study is that it enrolled patients with a range of melanoma stages, including about 18% with stage IV M1a disease, he added.

“This could potentially influence the results, where earlier-stage patients may have a more durable response, compared to higher-stage patients and, thus, the data may be further diluted by the small sample size,” he proposed. “Given this possibility, my sense is that the data is even more impressive since there still appears to be a significant clinical benefit at 3 years, and I would recommend larger studies in patients with earlier-stage melanoma as fertile ground for further oncolytic virus drug development.”

The current trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dummer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, and CatalYm. Dr. Kaufman disclosed employment by Immuneering.

SOURCE: Dummer R et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 432.

Neoadjuvant therapy with intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has durable efficacy in advanced melanoma, according to a phase 2 trial reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

T-VEC is a modified virus that lyses tumor cells locally and induces a systemic immune response. In the phase 2 trial, neoadjuvant T-VEC plus surgery improved 3-year recurrence-free survival, when compared with immediate surgery, in patients with resectable melanoma.

“This is the first neoadjuvant trial for an approved oncolytic virus in melanoma and the largest randomized prospectively controlled neoadjuvant melanoma trial completed to date,” said investigator Reinhard Dummer, MD, of University Hospital Zürich.

The multicenter trial enrolled 150 patients with resectable stage IIIB–IV M1a melanoma (thereby including many with in-transit metastasis) who had at least one injectable lesion.

“This patient population is typically excluded from the trials that are published. Those trials typically focus on lymph node metastasis only,” Dr. Dummer noted.

The patients were randomized evenly to receive six doses over 12 weeks of intralesional T-VEC followed by surgical resection, or to the conventional approach of immediate surgical resection.
 

Survival results

The median follow-up for this interim analysis was 41.3 months.

The 3-year rate of recurrence-free survival, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 46.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.67; P = .043). The median duration of recurrence-free survival was 27.5 months and 5.4 months, respectively.

These results were comparable with results seen at 2 years, which were published in Annals of Oncology in 2019. The 2-year rate of recurrence-free survival was 50.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

“These patients appear to be in a plateau phase now,” Dr. Dummer remarked.

The 3-year rate of event-free survival, which excluded any events related to a delay of surgery, was 50.3% for T-VEC and 32.7% for immediate surgery (HR, 0.58, P = .015).

Findings for both outcomes were similar when analyses were repeated after removing events that occurred after receipt of therapy in the adjuvant or metastatic setting.

Finally, the 3-year rate of overall survival was 83.2% with T-VEC plus surgery and 71.6% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.54; P = .061). Respective 2-year values were 88.9% and 77.4% (HR, 0.49; P = .050).

In all, 50.7% of patients in the T-VEC group received subsequent anticancer therapy, compared with 76.8% in the immediate-surgery group. Respective values specifically for subsequent immunotherapy – usually immune checkpoint inhibitors – were 32.9% and 46.4%.

“I think this is a good argument that the effects we see on overall survival and recurrence-free survival are not caused by improved second-line treatments,” Dr. Dummer said.

No new safety signals emerged during the additional year of follow-up. The trial’s final analysis will be conducted after 5 years of follow-up.

“These results build upon the prior 2-year results to support the potential beneficial effect of neoadjuvant T-VEC on advanced resectable melanoma,” Dr. Dummer said.

“In general, if you compare this to the objective outcomes that we see with neoadjuvant ipilimumab-nivolumab, for example, the results do not look very attractive,” he acknowledged.

“However, we have to keep in mind that this is a difficult patient population,” he added, noting that many patients have in-transit metastases that would disqualify them from conventional neoadjuvant therapy. Also, cross-trial comparisons are complicated by the need to allow adjuvant therapy in patients who receive neoadjuvant therapy.

“I would say the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab should be more powerful, but T-VEC has some impact, and from my understanding, T-VEC would be a perfect partner for a combination, for example, with an anti–[programmed death 1] agent,” Dr. Dummer concluded.
 

‘Impressive’ data support more research

“Neoadjuvant approaches are gaining enthusiasm for patients with locally advanced disease that may not be amenable to simple excision or may require large disfiguring procedures,” said Howard L. Kaufman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, both in Boston, who was not involved in this study.

© Michael Hoetzel

“A treatment option that could induce tumor regression while also promoting immune responses against the tumor is attractive,” Dr. Kaufman added.

“I continue to be impressed with this clinical trial as it demonstrates a consistent improvement in recurrence-free survival, event-free survival, and overall survival for patients treated with neoadjuvant T-VEC and surgery, compared to those who undergo surgery alone,” he said in an interview. “Confirmation that the responses are now maintained for another year is an important milestone.”

Given the study’s fairly small size, large treatment differences would be needed to attain the observed statistical significance, and “this is why the data at 3 years of follow-up is so impressive,” Dr. Kaufman said.

However, benefit of T-VEC’s activity in inducing a systemic immune response may not become fully evident until the end of the trial.

“Overall survival at 5 years is the most relevant endpoint,” Dr. Kaufman maintained.

An important aspect of the study is that it enrolled patients with a range of melanoma stages, including about 18% with stage IV M1a disease, he added.

“This could potentially influence the results, where earlier-stage patients may have a more durable response, compared to higher-stage patients and, thus, the data may be further diluted by the small sample size,” he proposed. “Given this possibility, my sense is that the data is even more impressive since there still appears to be a significant clinical benefit at 3 years, and I would recommend larger studies in patients with earlier-stage melanoma as fertile ground for further oncolytic virus drug development.”

The current trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dummer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, and CatalYm. Dr. Kaufman disclosed employment by Immuneering.

SOURCE: Dummer R et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 432.

Neoadjuvant therapy with intralesional talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) has durable efficacy in advanced melanoma, according to a phase 2 trial reported at the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer’s 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting.

T-VEC is a modified virus that lyses tumor cells locally and induces a systemic immune response. In the phase 2 trial, neoadjuvant T-VEC plus surgery improved 3-year recurrence-free survival, when compared with immediate surgery, in patients with resectable melanoma.

“This is the first neoadjuvant trial for an approved oncolytic virus in melanoma and the largest randomized prospectively controlled neoadjuvant melanoma trial completed to date,” said investigator Reinhard Dummer, MD, of University Hospital Zürich.

The multicenter trial enrolled 150 patients with resectable stage IIIB–IV M1a melanoma (thereby including many with in-transit metastasis) who had at least one injectable lesion.

“This patient population is typically excluded from the trials that are published. Those trials typically focus on lymph node metastasis only,” Dr. Dummer noted.

The patients were randomized evenly to receive six doses over 12 weeks of intralesional T-VEC followed by surgical resection, or to the conventional approach of immediate surgical resection.
 

Survival results

The median follow-up for this interim analysis was 41.3 months.

The 3-year rate of recurrence-free survival, the trial’s primary endpoint, was 46.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (hazard ratio, 0.67; P = .043). The median duration of recurrence-free survival was 27.5 months and 5.4 months, respectively.

These results were comparable with results seen at 2 years, which were published in Annals of Oncology in 2019. The 2-year rate of recurrence-free survival was 50.5% with T-VEC plus surgery and 31.0% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.66; P = .038).

“These patients appear to be in a plateau phase now,” Dr. Dummer remarked.

The 3-year rate of event-free survival, which excluded any events related to a delay of surgery, was 50.3% for T-VEC and 32.7% for immediate surgery (HR, 0.58, P = .015).

Findings for both outcomes were similar when analyses were repeated after removing events that occurred after receipt of therapy in the adjuvant or metastatic setting.

Finally, the 3-year rate of overall survival was 83.2% with T-VEC plus surgery and 71.6% with immediate surgery (HR, 0.54; P = .061). Respective 2-year values were 88.9% and 77.4% (HR, 0.49; P = .050).

In all, 50.7% of patients in the T-VEC group received subsequent anticancer therapy, compared with 76.8% in the immediate-surgery group. Respective values specifically for subsequent immunotherapy – usually immune checkpoint inhibitors – were 32.9% and 46.4%.

“I think this is a good argument that the effects we see on overall survival and recurrence-free survival are not caused by improved second-line treatments,” Dr. Dummer said.

No new safety signals emerged during the additional year of follow-up. The trial’s final analysis will be conducted after 5 years of follow-up.

“These results build upon the prior 2-year results to support the potential beneficial effect of neoadjuvant T-VEC on advanced resectable melanoma,” Dr. Dummer said.

“In general, if you compare this to the objective outcomes that we see with neoadjuvant ipilimumab-nivolumab, for example, the results do not look very attractive,” he acknowledged.

“However, we have to keep in mind that this is a difficult patient population,” he added, noting that many patients have in-transit metastases that would disqualify them from conventional neoadjuvant therapy. Also, cross-trial comparisons are complicated by the need to allow adjuvant therapy in patients who receive neoadjuvant therapy.

“I would say the combination of ipilimumab-nivolumab should be more powerful, but T-VEC has some impact, and from my understanding, T-VEC would be a perfect partner for a combination, for example, with an anti–[programmed death 1] agent,” Dr. Dummer concluded.
 

‘Impressive’ data support more research

“Neoadjuvant approaches are gaining enthusiasm for patients with locally advanced disease that may not be amenable to simple excision or may require large disfiguring procedures,” said Howard L. Kaufman, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Dana Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, both in Boston, who was not involved in this study.

© Michael Hoetzel

“A treatment option that could induce tumor regression while also promoting immune responses against the tumor is attractive,” Dr. Kaufman added.

“I continue to be impressed with this clinical trial as it demonstrates a consistent improvement in recurrence-free survival, event-free survival, and overall survival for patients treated with neoadjuvant T-VEC and surgery, compared to those who undergo surgery alone,” he said in an interview. “Confirmation that the responses are now maintained for another year is an important milestone.”

Given the study’s fairly small size, large treatment differences would be needed to attain the observed statistical significance, and “this is why the data at 3 years of follow-up is so impressive,” Dr. Kaufman said.

However, benefit of T-VEC’s activity in inducing a systemic immune response may not become fully evident until the end of the trial.

“Overall survival at 5 years is the most relevant endpoint,” Dr. Kaufman maintained.

An important aspect of the study is that it enrolled patients with a range of melanoma stages, including about 18% with stage IV M1a disease, he added.

“This could potentially influence the results, where earlier-stage patients may have a more durable response, compared to higher-stage patients and, thus, the data may be further diluted by the small sample size,” he proposed. “Given this possibility, my sense is that the data is even more impressive since there still appears to be a significant clinical benefit at 3 years, and I would recommend larger studies in patients with earlier-stage melanoma as fertile ground for further oncolytic virus drug development.”

The current trial was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dummer disclosed relationships with Amgen, Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, and CatalYm. Dr. Kaufman disclosed employment by Immuneering.

SOURCE: Dummer R et al. SITC 2020, Abstract 432.

The “hottest” presentation at the upcoming 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium comes from RxPONDER (abstract GS3-00), a major randomized clinical trial assessing use of a recurrence score among women with lymph node–positive, early-stage breast cancer to determine who might safely forgo chemotherapy.

That’s the word from Virginia Kaklamani, MD, from the University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio. Dr. Kaklamani, a professor of medicine in the division of hematology/oncology, is codirector of the meeting that runs online Dec. 8-11.

If the new trial sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a lot like the TAILORx trial, the results of which were first presented in 2018 and have changed practice in women with early-stage disease and no lymph node involvement.

“This is the lymph-node positive TAILORx. It’s extremely important,” Dr. Kaklamani said in an interview, adding that both trials involved women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative disease.

If the RxPONDER trial shows similar outcomes between women randomized to adjuvant endocrine therapy alone versus endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy, then clinicians “can potentially avoid giving chemotherapy to a large number of women who are currently receiving it,” she explained.

Because women with nodal involvement (one to three positive axillary nodes) are at a higher risk of recurrence, RxPONDER may provide needed insight on the management of these types of breast cancers, Dr. Kaklamani suggested.

Both trials have used the 21-tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype Dx) to determine recurrence-risk status.

Dr. Kaklamani also spotlighted the phase 3 CONTESSA trial (abstract GS4-01) in 600+ patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that is HR positive and HER2 negative and has been previously treated with a taxane.

The trial features an experimental oral taxane, tesetaxel. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine (Xeloda) versus the approved dose of capecitabine alone. Presented data will include progression-free survival results, indicating about a 3-month PFS advantage with tesetaxel, which is taken once every 3 weeks.

“Oral drugs are convenient for patients and, despite limitations, they are, all in all, a revolution in cancer treatment,” noted Dr. Kaklamani, adding that they beneficially eliminate the need for time-consuming infusions and related clinic visits as well as drug ports. 

It will be interesting to see what Steven Vogl, MD, a private practitioner in New Yorky, has to say about CONTESSA and the rest of the SABCS.

He is usually a commentator from the meeting floor, whose self-introduction, “Vogl, New York,” is well known to perennial meeting attendees, according to a profile piece published some years ago.

This year the medical oncologist will also serve as the chair of the “View from the Trenches” session, which is devoted to summarizing the meeting’s most important findings for everyday practitioners.

A number of years ago, Dr. Vogl proposed the idea of this where-the-rubber-meets-the-road session to SABCS meeting planners, which they then adopted. This year, Dr. Kaklamani invited Dr. Vogl to run the session and he accepted.

Dr. Vogl is a “really smart guy who is always right on” with his comments and questions, and he will be the first-ever independent, community-based oncologist to chair a meeting session, said Dr. Kaklamani.
 

Other hot topics

Another hot topic featured at the meeting will be the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive and HER2-negative disease that has a high risk of recurrence, Dr. Kaklamani said. New data from two trials, monarchE and PENELOPE-B, will be presented.

First, there will be an update from the monarchE trial (abstract GS1-01). The first results from this trial were reported in September at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. They showed that adding abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy reduced the risk of early recurrence. The positive outcome represented the first treatment improvement in this high-risk setting in more than 20 years, according to experts.

A similar trial, PENELOPE-B (abstract GS1-02), looks at palbociclib (Ibrance) in a somewhat different population – those patients with high relapse risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. “These are even higher risk ER+ patients [than those in monarchE], which is why they received chemotherapy before surgery,” commented Dr. Kaklamani.

In triple-negative disease, there will be overall survival (OS) results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study (abstract GS3-01) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) versus placebo (plus chemotherapy for all patients) as first-line therapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. “It’s potentially a huge deal,” said Dr. Kaklamani about the OS data, if they are statistically significant.

A meta-analysis (abstract GS4-08) of data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs), which are shed from the primary tumor into the bloodstream, may point to their value as a tool to determine whether or not a breast cancer treatment is effective. “CTCs allow you to assess how a treatment is doing before you do scans, which typically occur 3 months or so later,” explained Dr. Kaklamani.

CTC results can be assessed in 3-4 weeks and allow clinicians to change treatments if CTC volume increases. However, a previous study of CTCs did not show a clinical benefit with the tool among patients treated mainly with chemotherapies. What’s different about the new study, which is from an international group of investigators, is in the treatments patients with metastatic breast cancer received. “This study is from a different era – with targeted therapies,” said Dr. Kaklamani.

In the new study, changes in CTC levels (with a reduction being a good result) between baseline (pretreatment) and follow-up were analyzed to determine whether they were associated with overall survival.
 

COVID sessions

On the meeting’s first day, SABCS will feature a special session on COVID-19 and breast cancer. The meeting organizers sought to separate the wheat from the chaff in this subject, as much has already been written, published, or presented.

“We received a lot of abstracts on COVID that were studies that were poorly done. We tried to tease through them and select the well-researched ones,” acknowledged Dr. Kaklamani.

The organizers included two patient advocates who have had COVID-19, including during treatment for breast cancer, as participants in the meeting session. The session will also feature global perspectives, with presenters from Brazil, Italy, and the Netherlands. 
 

Plenary lectures

The meeting’s two plenary lectures will focus, respectively, on the increasingly used clinical approach of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer, and research in the time of a pandemic.

Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a surgical oncologist and director of the Breast lmmuno-Oncology program and co-director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Research Program at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, will present “Local regional management following neoadjuvant therapy: Minding the knowledge gaps.”

Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the National Cancer Institute, will present “Advancing cancer research during challenging times.”

Dr. Kaklamani disclosed recieving consulting fees with Amgen, Eisai, Puma, Celldex, AstraZeneca, and Athenex; receiving fees for non-CME services received directly from commercial interest or their agents from Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, and Novartis; and contracted research with Eisai.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The “hottest” presentation at the upcoming 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium comes from RxPONDER (abstract GS3-00), a major randomized clinical trial assessing use of a recurrence score among women with lymph node–positive, early-stage breast cancer to determine who might safely forgo chemotherapy.

That’s the word from Virginia Kaklamani, MD, from the University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio. Dr. Kaklamani, a professor of medicine in the division of hematology/oncology, is codirector of the meeting that runs online Dec. 8-11.

If the new trial sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a lot like the TAILORx trial, the results of which were first presented in 2018 and have changed practice in women with early-stage disease and no lymph node involvement.

“This is the lymph-node positive TAILORx. It’s extremely important,” Dr. Kaklamani said in an interview, adding that both trials involved women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative disease.

If the RxPONDER trial shows similar outcomes between women randomized to adjuvant endocrine therapy alone versus endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy, then clinicians “can potentially avoid giving chemotherapy to a large number of women who are currently receiving it,” she explained.

Because women with nodal involvement (one to three positive axillary nodes) are at a higher risk of recurrence, RxPONDER may provide needed insight on the management of these types of breast cancers, Dr. Kaklamani suggested.

Both trials have used the 21-tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype Dx) to determine recurrence-risk status.

Dr. Kaklamani also spotlighted the phase 3 CONTESSA trial (abstract GS4-01) in 600+ patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that is HR positive and HER2 negative and has been previously treated with a taxane.

The trial features an experimental oral taxane, tesetaxel. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine (Xeloda) versus the approved dose of capecitabine alone. Presented data will include progression-free survival results, indicating about a 3-month PFS advantage with tesetaxel, which is taken once every 3 weeks.

“Oral drugs are convenient for patients and, despite limitations, they are, all in all, a revolution in cancer treatment,” noted Dr. Kaklamani, adding that they beneficially eliminate the need for time-consuming infusions and related clinic visits as well as drug ports. 

It will be interesting to see what Steven Vogl, MD, a private practitioner in New Yorky, has to say about CONTESSA and the rest of the SABCS.

He is usually a commentator from the meeting floor, whose self-introduction, “Vogl, New York,” is well known to perennial meeting attendees, according to a profile piece published some years ago.

This year the medical oncologist will also serve as the chair of the “View from the Trenches” session, which is devoted to summarizing the meeting’s most important findings for everyday practitioners.

A number of years ago, Dr. Vogl proposed the idea of this where-the-rubber-meets-the-road session to SABCS meeting planners, which they then adopted. This year, Dr. Kaklamani invited Dr. Vogl to run the session and he accepted.

Dr. Vogl is a “really smart guy who is always right on” with his comments and questions, and he will be the first-ever independent, community-based oncologist to chair a meeting session, said Dr. Kaklamani.
 

Other hot topics

Another hot topic featured at the meeting will be the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive and HER2-negative disease that has a high risk of recurrence, Dr. Kaklamani said. New data from two trials, monarchE and PENELOPE-B, will be presented.

First, there will be an update from the monarchE trial (abstract GS1-01). The first results from this trial were reported in September at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. They showed that adding abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy reduced the risk of early recurrence. The positive outcome represented the first treatment improvement in this high-risk setting in more than 20 years, according to experts.

A similar trial, PENELOPE-B (abstract GS1-02), looks at palbociclib (Ibrance) in a somewhat different population – those patients with high relapse risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. “These are even higher risk ER+ patients [than those in monarchE], which is why they received chemotherapy before surgery,” commented Dr. Kaklamani.

In triple-negative disease, there will be overall survival (OS) results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study (abstract GS3-01) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) versus placebo (plus chemotherapy for all patients) as first-line therapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. “It’s potentially a huge deal,” said Dr. Kaklamani about the OS data, if they are statistically significant.

A meta-analysis (abstract GS4-08) of data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs), which are shed from the primary tumor into the bloodstream, may point to their value as a tool to determine whether or not a breast cancer treatment is effective. “CTCs allow you to assess how a treatment is doing before you do scans, which typically occur 3 months or so later,” explained Dr. Kaklamani.

CTC results can be assessed in 3-4 weeks and allow clinicians to change treatments if CTC volume increases. However, a previous study of CTCs did not show a clinical benefit with the tool among patients treated mainly with chemotherapies. What’s different about the new study, which is from an international group of investigators, is in the treatments patients with metastatic breast cancer received. “This study is from a different era – with targeted therapies,” said Dr. Kaklamani.

In the new study, changes in CTC levels (with a reduction being a good result) between baseline (pretreatment) and follow-up were analyzed to determine whether they were associated with overall survival.
 

COVID sessions

On the meeting’s first day, SABCS will feature a special session on COVID-19 and breast cancer. The meeting organizers sought to separate the wheat from the chaff in this subject, as much has already been written, published, or presented.

“We received a lot of abstracts on COVID that were studies that were poorly done. We tried to tease through them and select the well-researched ones,” acknowledged Dr. Kaklamani.

The organizers included two patient advocates who have had COVID-19, including during treatment for breast cancer, as participants in the meeting session. The session will also feature global perspectives, with presenters from Brazil, Italy, and the Netherlands. 
 

Plenary lectures

The meeting’s two plenary lectures will focus, respectively, on the increasingly used clinical approach of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer, and research in the time of a pandemic.

Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a surgical oncologist and director of the Breast lmmuno-Oncology program and co-director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Research Program at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, will present “Local regional management following neoadjuvant therapy: Minding the knowledge gaps.”

Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the National Cancer Institute, will present “Advancing cancer research during challenging times.”

Dr. Kaklamani disclosed recieving consulting fees with Amgen, Eisai, Puma, Celldex, AstraZeneca, and Athenex; receiving fees for non-CME services received directly from commercial interest or their agents from Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, and Novartis; and contracted research with Eisai.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The “hottest” presentation at the upcoming 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium comes from RxPONDER (abstract GS3-00), a major randomized clinical trial assessing use of a recurrence score among women with lymph node–positive, early-stage breast cancer to determine who might safely forgo chemotherapy.

That’s the word from Virginia Kaklamani, MD, from the University of Texas Health Sciences Center San Antonio. Dr. Kaklamani, a professor of medicine in the division of hematology/oncology, is codirector of the meeting that runs online Dec. 8-11.

If the new trial sounds familiar, that’s because it’s a lot like the TAILORx trial, the results of which were first presented in 2018 and have changed practice in women with early-stage disease and no lymph node involvement.

“This is the lymph-node positive TAILORx. It’s extremely important,” Dr. Kaklamani said in an interview, adding that both trials involved women with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative disease.

If the RxPONDER trial shows similar outcomes between women randomized to adjuvant endocrine therapy alone versus endocrine therapy plus chemotherapy, then clinicians “can potentially avoid giving chemotherapy to a large number of women who are currently receiving it,” she explained.

Because women with nodal involvement (one to three positive axillary nodes) are at a higher risk of recurrence, RxPONDER may provide needed insight on the management of these types of breast cancers, Dr. Kaklamani suggested.

Both trials have used the 21-tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype Dx) to determine recurrence-risk status.

Dr. Kaklamani also spotlighted the phase 3 CONTESSA trial (abstract GS4-01) in 600+ patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer that is HR positive and HER2 negative and has been previously treated with a taxane.

The trial features an experimental oral taxane, tesetaxel. The primary objective is to compare the efficacy of tesetaxel plus a reduced dose of capecitabine (Xeloda) versus the approved dose of capecitabine alone. Presented data will include progression-free survival results, indicating about a 3-month PFS advantage with tesetaxel, which is taken once every 3 weeks.

“Oral drugs are convenient for patients and, despite limitations, they are, all in all, a revolution in cancer treatment,” noted Dr. Kaklamani, adding that they beneficially eliminate the need for time-consuming infusions and related clinic visits as well as drug ports. 

It will be interesting to see what Steven Vogl, MD, a private practitioner in New Yorky, has to say about CONTESSA and the rest of the SABCS.

He is usually a commentator from the meeting floor, whose self-introduction, “Vogl, New York,” is well known to perennial meeting attendees, according to a profile piece published some years ago.

This year the medical oncologist will also serve as the chair of the “View from the Trenches” session, which is devoted to summarizing the meeting’s most important findings for everyday practitioners.

A number of years ago, Dr. Vogl proposed the idea of this where-the-rubber-meets-the-road session to SABCS meeting planners, which they then adopted. This year, Dr. Kaklamani invited Dr. Vogl to run the session and he accepted.

Dr. Vogl is a “really smart guy who is always right on” with his comments and questions, and he will be the first-ever independent, community-based oncologist to chair a meeting session, said Dr. Kaklamani.
 

Other hot topics

Another hot topic featured at the meeting will be the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in the adjuvant treatment of HR-positive and HER2-negative disease that has a high risk of recurrence, Dr. Kaklamani said. New data from two trials, monarchE and PENELOPE-B, will be presented.

First, there will be an update from the monarchE trial (abstract GS1-01). The first results from this trial were reported in September at the European Society for Medical Oncology Virtual Congress 2020. They showed that adding abemaciclib (Verzenio) to endocrine therapy reduced the risk of early recurrence. The positive outcome represented the first treatment improvement in this high-risk setting in more than 20 years, according to experts.

A similar trial, PENELOPE-B (abstract GS1-02), looks at palbociclib (Ibrance) in a somewhat different population – those patients with high relapse risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. “These are even higher risk ER+ patients [than those in monarchE], which is why they received chemotherapy before surgery,” commented Dr. Kaklamani.

In triple-negative disease, there will be overall survival (OS) results from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-355 study (abstract GS3-01) of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) versus placebo (plus chemotherapy for all patients) as first-line therapy for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. “It’s potentially a huge deal,” said Dr. Kaklamani about the OS data, if they are statistically significant.

A meta-analysis (abstract GS4-08) of data on circulating tumor cells (CTCs), which are shed from the primary tumor into the bloodstream, may point to their value as a tool to determine whether or not a breast cancer treatment is effective. “CTCs allow you to assess how a treatment is doing before you do scans, which typically occur 3 months or so later,” explained Dr. Kaklamani.

CTC results can be assessed in 3-4 weeks and allow clinicians to change treatments if CTC volume increases. However, a previous study of CTCs did not show a clinical benefit with the tool among patients treated mainly with chemotherapies. What’s different about the new study, which is from an international group of investigators, is in the treatments patients with metastatic breast cancer received. “This study is from a different era – with targeted therapies,” said Dr. Kaklamani.

In the new study, changes in CTC levels (with a reduction being a good result) between baseline (pretreatment) and follow-up were analyzed to determine whether they were associated with overall survival.
 

COVID sessions

On the meeting’s first day, SABCS will feature a special session on COVID-19 and breast cancer. The meeting organizers sought to separate the wheat from the chaff in this subject, as much has already been written, published, or presented.

“We received a lot of abstracts on COVID that were studies that were poorly done. We tried to tease through them and select the well-researched ones,” acknowledged Dr. Kaklamani.

The organizers included two patient advocates who have had COVID-19, including during treatment for breast cancer, as participants in the meeting session. The session will also feature global perspectives, with presenters from Brazil, Italy, and the Netherlands. 
 

Plenary lectures

The meeting’s two plenary lectures will focus, respectively, on the increasingly used clinical approach of neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer, and research in the time of a pandemic.

Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a surgical oncologist and director of the Breast lmmuno-Oncology program and co-director of the Breast Cancer Clinical Research Program at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center, Boston, will present “Local regional management following neoadjuvant therapy: Minding the knowledge gaps.”

Ned Sharpless, MD, director of the National Cancer Institute, will present “Advancing cancer research during challenging times.”

Dr. Kaklamani disclosed recieving consulting fees with Amgen, Eisai, Puma, Celldex, AstraZeneca, and Athenex; receiving fees for non-CME services received directly from commercial interest or their agents from Pfizer, Celgene, Genentech, Genomic Health, Puma, Eisai, and Novartis; and contracted research with Eisai.

This article first 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.

For patients with heavily-pretreated multiple myeloma, the early and deep responses seen with the novel chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) have also been durable, according to investigators in the CARTITUDE-1 trial.

Among 97 patients with multiple myeloma that had progressed on three or more prior lines of therapy or following treatment with at least two lines of therapy with a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulating agent, the overall response rate (ORR) was 96.9%, with a median duration of response not reached after a median of 12.4 months of follow-up, reported Deepu Madduri, MD of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, and colleagues.

“We saw how heavily pretreated these patients were, and to see a one-time treatment get these kind of response rates is quite exceptional. What’s even more impressive is that 72% of these patients were still maintaining their response at the time of data cutoff,“ she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T containing two single-domain antibodies targeted against B-cell maturation protein (BCMA). BCMA was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

As previously reported, the same CAR T-cell construct showed a high overall response with manageable toxicities in 74 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel was granted a breakthrough therapy designation for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2019, a priority medicines (PRIME) designation by the European Medicines Agency in April 2019, and breakthrough designation in China in September 2020.

At the 2019 ASH annual meeting, Dr. Madduri reported phase 1b results from the trial, which showed that for 29 patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the ORR at 6 months median follow-up was 100%, including 69% complete responses, with 27 patients remaining free of disease progression.
 

Combined data

For the 2020 ASH annual meeting, Dr. Madduri reported combined results from phases 1b and 2 of the CARTITUDE-1 study.

The investigators enrolled patients with multiple myeloma with measurable diseases as assessed by M-protein or serum free light chain levels who had experienced disease progression on at least three prior lines of therapy, or whose disease was refractory to at least two lines of therapy with a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

Patients underwent apheresis for T-cell collection, with bridging therapy allowed until the expanded T cells could be delivered.

Following T-cell depletion with cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m² and fludarabine 30 mg/m² over 3 days, patients received a single weight-based infusion (compared with fixed-dose infusions used with other CAR T-cell constructs).

The dose was targeted at 0.75x106 CAR-positive cells/kg, with a target range of 0.5–1.0x106, administered 5-7 days after the start of the conditioning regimen.

Of the 101 patients who underwent lymphodepletion, 97 (29 in phase 1b and 68 in phase 2) were treated with cilta-cel. Five of the patients in phase 1b and nine in phase 2 died on study, five of whom succumbed to progressive disease, and three due to adverse events unrelated to treatment. The remaining six patients died from treatment-related causes, including two patients from sepsis or septic shock, and one each from the cytokine release syndrome (CRS)/hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), lung abscess, respiratory failure, and neurotoxicity.

At the time of data cutoff, 83 patients remained on study.
 

High ORR

The ORR was 96.9% (94 of 97 patients), comprising 67% stringent complete responses (sCR), 25.8% very good partial responses (VGPR), and 4.1% partial responses (PR).

Among 57 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD), 53 (93%) were MRD negative. Of this group, 49 had a VGPR or better.

The median time to first response was 1 month (range 0.9 to 8.5 months). At the time of data cutoff 70 patients had an ongoing response.

Among patients followed for a minimum of 6 months, most had cilta-cel CAR T-cells below the level of quantification (2 cells per microliter) in peripheral blood.

At a median follow-up of 12.4 months, 12-month overall progression-free survival rate was 76%, with the median PFS not reached. The 12-month overall survival rate was 88.5%, with the median OS not reached.
 

Safety data

All patients had at least one hematologic adverse event, 96 of which were grade 3 or 4 in severity. The events include neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and lymphopenia. The median time to recovery was 2 weeks for grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and 4 weeks for thrombocytopenia.

Infections of any grade occurred in 57.7% of patients, including grade 3/4 pneumonia in 8.2% and grade 3/4 sepsis in 4.1%.

Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicities were uncommon, Dr. Madduri noted.

CRS of any grade occurred in 92 patients, but only 4 had grade 3 or 4 CRS.

Neurotoxicities occurred in 20 patients, of whom 10 had grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity.

Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred in 16 patients, with 2 having grade 3 or greater ICANS. Other neurotoxicities of any grade, many which overlapped with ICANS, occurred in 12 patients, with 9 having grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity.

The median time to ICANS onset was 8 days, with a median time to recovery of 4 days. Other neurotoxicities took longer to manifest and disappear, however, with a median time to onset of 27 days, and median time to recovery of 75 days.
 

Neurotoxicity mechanism questioned

In the question-and-answer session following her presentation, an audience member asked whether the investigators had any insights into the mechanism underlying the non-ICANS neurotoxicities they saw.

“We saw no clear etiology in the other neurotoxicities, but we saw that maybe there could be some mild associations with high tumor burden, prior CRS, ICANS, or even the higher expansion and persistence of these cells,” Dr. Madduri replied.

She noted that subsequent to these findings, the investigators have implemented mitigation strategies including allowing patients to have more bridging chemotherapy, more aggressive steroid use for early ICANS, and extensive monitoring.

Eric Smith, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said that the non-ICANS neurotoxicity profile of cilta-cel was different from that seen in other CAR T-cell trials, and asked how it compared to that of bi-specific BCMA/CD3 CAR T constructs.

“We did see some nerve palsies and peripheral motor neuropathy, but it wasn’t that many patients, and it’s really hard to compare what happened here with the bi-specifics, as every product is very different,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development and Legend Biotech. Dr. Madduri disclosed honoraria, consultancy, and speakers bureau activities for those companies and others.
 

SOURCE: Madduri D et al. ASH 2020. Abstract 177.

For patients with heavily-pretreated multiple myeloma, the early and deep responses seen with the novel chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) have also been durable, according to investigators in the CARTITUDE-1 trial.

Among 97 patients with multiple myeloma that had progressed on three or more prior lines of therapy or following treatment with at least two lines of therapy with a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulating agent, the overall response rate (ORR) was 96.9%, with a median duration of response not reached after a median of 12.4 months of follow-up, reported Deepu Madduri, MD of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, and colleagues.

“We saw how heavily pretreated these patients were, and to see a one-time treatment get these kind of response rates is quite exceptional. What’s even more impressive is that 72% of these patients were still maintaining their response at the time of data cutoff,“ she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T containing two single-domain antibodies targeted against B-cell maturation protein (BCMA). BCMA was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

As previously reported, the same CAR T-cell construct showed a high overall response with manageable toxicities in 74 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel was granted a breakthrough therapy designation for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2019, a priority medicines (PRIME) designation by the European Medicines Agency in April 2019, and breakthrough designation in China in September 2020.

At the 2019 ASH annual meeting, Dr. Madduri reported phase 1b results from the trial, which showed that for 29 patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the ORR at 6 months median follow-up was 100%, including 69% complete responses, with 27 patients remaining free of disease progression.
 

Combined data

For the 2020 ASH annual meeting, Dr. Madduri reported combined results from phases 1b and 2 of the CARTITUDE-1 study.

The investigators enrolled patients with multiple myeloma with measurable diseases as assessed by M-protein or serum free light chain levels who had experienced disease progression on at least three prior lines of therapy, or whose disease was refractory to at least two lines of therapy with a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

Patients underwent apheresis for T-cell collection, with bridging therapy allowed until the expanded T cells could be delivered.

Following T-cell depletion with cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m² and fludarabine 30 mg/m² over 3 days, patients received a single weight-based infusion (compared with fixed-dose infusions used with other CAR T-cell constructs).

The dose was targeted at 0.75x106 CAR-positive cells/kg, with a target range of 0.5–1.0x106, administered 5-7 days after the start of the conditioning regimen.

Of the 101 patients who underwent lymphodepletion, 97 (29 in phase 1b and 68 in phase 2) were treated with cilta-cel. Five of the patients in phase 1b and nine in phase 2 died on study, five of whom succumbed to progressive disease, and three due to adverse events unrelated to treatment. The remaining six patients died from treatment-related causes, including two patients from sepsis or septic shock, and one each from the cytokine release syndrome (CRS)/hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), lung abscess, respiratory failure, and neurotoxicity.

At the time of data cutoff, 83 patients remained on study.
 

High ORR

The ORR was 96.9% (94 of 97 patients), comprising 67% stringent complete responses (sCR), 25.8% very good partial responses (VGPR), and 4.1% partial responses (PR).

Among 57 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD), 53 (93%) were MRD negative. Of this group, 49 had a VGPR or better.

The median time to first response was 1 month (range 0.9 to 8.5 months). At the time of data cutoff 70 patients had an ongoing response.

Among patients followed for a minimum of 6 months, most had cilta-cel CAR T-cells below the level of quantification (2 cells per microliter) in peripheral blood.

At a median follow-up of 12.4 months, 12-month overall progression-free survival rate was 76%, with the median PFS not reached. The 12-month overall survival rate was 88.5%, with the median OS not reached.
 

Safety data

All patients had at least one hematologic adverse event, 96 of which were grade 3 or 4 in severity. The events include neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and lymphopenia. The median time to recovery was 2 weeks for grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and 4 weeks for thrombocytopenia.

Infections of any grade occurred in 57.7% of patients, including grade 3/4 pneumonia in 8.2% and grade 3/4 sepsis in 4.1%.

Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicities were uncommon, Dr. Madduri noted.

CRS of any grade occurred in 92 patients, but only 4 had grade 3 or 4 CRS.

Neurotoxicities occurred in 20 patients, of whom 10 had grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity.

Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred in 16 patients, with 2 having grade 3 or greater ICANS. Other neurotoxicities of any grade, many which overlapped with ICANS, occurred in 12 patients, with 9 having grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity.

The median time to ICANS onset was 8 days, with a median time to recovery of 4 days. Other neurotoxicities took longer to manifest and disappear, however, with a median time to onset of 27 days, and median time to recovery of 75 days.
 

Neurotoxicity mechanism questioned

In the question-and-answer session following her presentation, an audience member asked whether the investigators had any insights into the mechanism underlying the non-ICANS neurotoxicities they saw.

“We saw no clear etiology in the other neurotoxicities, but we saw that maybe there could be some mild associations with high tumor burden, prior CRS, ICANS, or even the higher expansion and persistence of these cells,” Dr. Madduri replied.

She noted that subsequent to these findings, the investigators have implemented mitigation strategies including allowing patients to have more bridging chemotherapy, more aggressive steroid use for early ICANS, and extensive monitoring.

Eric Smith, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said that the non-ICANS neurotoxicity profile of cilta-cel was different from that seen in other CAR T-cell trials, and asked how it compared to that of bi-specific BCMA/CD3 CAR T constructs.

“We did see some nerve palsies and peripheral motor neuropathy, but it wasn’t that many patients, and it’s really hard to compare what happened here with the bi-specifics, as every product is very different,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development and Legend Biotech. Dr. Madduri disclosed honoraria, consultancy, and speakers bureau activities for those companies and others.
 

SOURCE: Madduri D et al. ASH 2020. Abstract 177.

For patients with heavily-pretreated multiple myeloma, the early and deep responses seen with the novel chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) construct ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) have also been durable, according to investigators in the CARTITUDE-1 trial.

Among 97 patients with multiple myeloma that had progressed on three or more prior lines of therapy or following treatment with at least two lines of therapy with a proteasome inhibitor and immunomodulating agent, the overall response rate (ORR) was 96.9%, with a median duration of response not reached after a median of 12.4 months of follow-up, reported Deepu Madduri, MD of Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York, and colleagues.

“We saw how heavily pretreated these patients were, and to see a one-time treatment get these kind of response rates is quite exceptional. What’s even more impressive is that 72% of these patients were still maintaining their response at the time of data cutoff,“ she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

Cilta-cel is a second-generation CAR T containing two single-domain antibodies targeted against B-cell maturation protein (BCMA). BCMA was first described in myeloma in 2004 as a mechanism for the growth and survival of malignant plasma cells.

As previously reported, the same CAR T-cell construct showed a high overall response with manageable toxicities in 74 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel was granted a breakthrough therapy designation for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2019, a priority medicines (PRIME) designation by the European Medicines Agency in April 2019, and breakthrough designation in China in September 2020.

At the 2019 ASH annual meeting, Dr. Madduri reported phase 1b results from the trial, which showed that for 29 patients with heavily pretreated, relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the ORR at 6 months median follow-up was 100%, including 69% complete responses, with 27 patients remaining free of disease progression.
 

Combined data

For the 2020 ASH annual meeting, Dr. Madduri reported combined results from phases 1b and 2 of the CARTITUDE-1 study.

The investigators enrolled patients with multiple myeloma with measurable diseases as assessed by M-protein or serum free light chain levels who had experienced disease progression on at least three prior lines of therapy, or whose disease was refractory to at least two lines of therapy with a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory drug, and an anti-CD38 antibody.

Patients underwent apheresis for T-cell collection, with bridging therapy allowed until the expanded T cells could be delivered.

Following T-cell depletion with cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m² and fludarabine 30 mg/m² over 3 days, patients received a single weight-based infusion (compared with fixed-dose infusions used with other CAR T-cell constructs).

The dose was targeted at 0.75x106 CAR-positive cells/kg, with a target range of 0.5–1.0x106, administered 5-7 days after the start of the conditioning regimen.

Of the 101 patients who underwent lymphodepletion, 97 (29 in phase 1b and 68 in phase 2) were treated with cilta-cel. Five of the patients in phase 1b and nine in phase 2 died on study, five of whom succumbed to progressive disease, and three due to adverse events unrelated to treatment. The remaining six patients died from treatment-related causes, including two patients from sepsis or septic shock, and one each from the cytokine release syndrome (CRS)/hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH), lung abscess, respiratory failure, and neurotoxicity.

At the time of data cutoff, 83 patients remained on study.
 

High ORR

The ORR was 96.9% (94 of 97 patients), comprising 67% stringent complete responses (sCR), 25.8% very good partial responses (VGPR), and 4.1% partial responses (PR).

Among 57 patients evaluable for minimal residual disease (MRD), 53 (93%) were MRD negative. Of this group, 49 had a VGPR or better.

The median time to first response was 1 month (range 0.9 to 8.5 months). At the time of data cutoff 70 patients had an ongoing response.

Among patients followed for a minimum of 6 months, most had cilta-cel CAR T-cells below the level of quantification (2 cells per microliter) in peripheral blood.

At a median follow-up of 12.4 months, 12-month overall progression-free survival rate was 76%, with the median PFS not reached. The 12-month overall survival rate was 88.5%, with the median OS not reached.
 

Safety data

All patients had at least one hematologic adverse event, 96 of which were grade 3 or 4 in severity. The events include neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and lymphopenia. The median time to recovery was 2 weeks for grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and 4 weeks for thrombocytopenia.

Infections of any grade occurred in 57.7% of patients, including grade 3/4 pneumonia in 8.2% and grade 3/4 sepsis in 4.1%.

Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicities were uncommon, Dr. Madduri noted.

CRS of any grade occurred in 92 patients, but only 4 had grade 3 or 4 CRS.

Neurotoxicities occurred in 20 patients, of whom 10 had grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity.

Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred in 16 patients, with 2 having grade 3 or greater ICANS. Other neurotoxicities of any grade, many which overlapped with ICANS, occurred in 12 patients, with 9 having grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity.

The median time to ICANS onset was 8 days, with a median time to recovery of 4 days. Other neurotoxicities took longer to manifest and disappear, however, with a median time to onset of 27 days, and median time to recovery of 75 days.
 

Neurotoxicity mechanism questioned

In the question-and-answer session following her presentation, an audience member asked whether the investigators had any insights into the mechanism underlying the non-ICANS neurotoxicities they saw.

“We saw no clear etiology in the other neurotoxicities, but we saw that maybe there could be some mild associations with high tumor burden, prior CRS, ICANS, or even the higher expansion and persistence of these cells,” Dr. Madduri replied.

She noted that subsequent to these findings, the investigators have implemented mitigation strategies including allowing patients to have more bridging chemotherapy, more aggressive steroid use for early ICANS, and extensive monitoring.

Eric Smith, MD, PhD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, said that the non-ICANS neurotoxicity profile of cilta-cel was different from that seen in other CAR T-cell trials, and asked how it compared to that of bi-specific BCMA/CD3 CAR T constructs.

“We did see some nerve palsies and peripheral motor neuropathy, but it wasn’t that many patients, and it’s really hard to compare what happened here with the bi-specifics, as every product is very different,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development and Legend Biotech. Dr. Madduri disclosed honoraria, consultancy, and speakers bureau activities for those companies and others.
 

SOURCE: Madduri D et al. ASH 2020. Abstract 177.

In patients with T-cell lymphoma, allogeneic transplant can lead to durable remissions among patients who might otherwise have poor outcomes, results of a large retrospective observational study suggest.

Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) approached 40% and 5-year overall survival (OS) was over 50% in the study, which according to an investigator is the largest-ever reported patient series of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in T-cell lymphomas.

“We believe that eligible patients with relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphomas should be considered for consultation for allogeneic transplant by an expert clinician,” said investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.

“These decisions should occur on a patient by patient level – but it’s important to consider this,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, held virtually this year.

Notably, patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) had a higher rate of relapse yet similar overall survival (OS) compared to patients with common peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) subtypes, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Among PTCL subtypes, there was a trend toward improved PFS and OS for angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), compared with PTCL not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), she added.

Catherine M. Diefenbach, MD, director of the clinical lymphoma program at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, said the results of this retrospective study need to considered in light of the treatment-related risks associated with allogeneic transplantation.

Treatment-related mortality in the study ranged from about 8% to 24%, depending on the donor type, while acute and chronic graft-versus-host-disease (GvHD) was seen in more than 40% of patients, the reported data show.

“If I have a relapsed patient with AITL, I would look to this data and say that patients with AITL appear in a retrospective study to have a strong benefit,” Dr. Diefenbach said in an interview.

“For the other patients, you would describe both potential benefits and also discuss the treatment-associated risks – both the chronic GvHD and transplant-related mortality – and you’d have to balance the risk with the benefits for each individual case,” Dr. Diefenbach added.

The retrospective analysis by Dr. Mehta-Shah and colleagues included 508 consecutive T-cell lymphoma patients receiving allogeneic transplants at 12 academic centers between 2000 and 2019. The most common subtypes were PTCL-NOS in 26%, AITL in 16%, CTCL in 13%, and hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) in 7%. About 40% had a matched related donor (MRD) and 39% had a matched unrelated donor (MUD). The conditioning regimen was myeloablative in about a third of patients and nonmyeloablative in two-thirds.

At 5 years, PFS was 39.4% and OS was 50.8% for the overall study cohort, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, noting that the median time from relapse to death post allogeneic transplant was 10.2 months.

Patients in complete remission at the time of transplant fared better than others, with a median PFS of 44.6 months vs. 8.5 months for those in partial remission, 21.0 months in those with stable disease, and 3.5 months for those with progressive disease at time of transplant, data show.

Patients with common PTCL subtypes had better PFS compared to patients with CTCL, yet OS was similar, according to the investigator. At 5 years, PFS was 43.7% and 18.6%, respectively, for PTCL and CTCL, while OS was 53.1% and 44.0%, respectively.

There was a trend toward improved outcomes for AITL relative to PTCL-NOS and ALCL, with a median PFS of 51.4 months for AITL versus 18.3 months those other subtypes. Similarly, median OS was not reached for AITL versus 73.1 months in the other subtypes.

Treatment-related mortality was lowest for patients with MRDs, or 8.2% at 12 months, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, while patients with MUDs, mismatched donors, or haploidentical donors had treatment-related mortality of 13% to 16% at 12 months, and those with cord blood donors had treatment-related mortality of nearly 24% at 12 months.

Acute GvHD was observed in 46% of patients and chronic GvHD was seen in nearly 41%, the investigator added.

While these findings are important to consider in individual patient consultations, the study is nevertheless subject to limitations including patient selection and referral bias, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

“This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent transplant,” she said in a question-and-answer period. “Of course, that is heavily biased by who got to a transplant center, who was well enough to achieve transplant, and who had a donor or donor options, as well as their overall health and depth of remission,” the researcher said.

“I think this just represents what we could tell patients about what may happen to them once they embark on a transplant,” she added, “but really, there would be more prospective work needed to be done for what happens to patients overarching, and how many of them even get to a transplant consultation.”

Further studies should be done to develop predictive tools or biomarkers to determine who benefits from an allogeneic transplant, if there are predictors of relapse following allogeneic transplant, and what are the mechanisms of relapse following allogeneic transplant, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Dr. Mehta-Shah reported research funding from Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Verastem, Corvus, Innate Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech/Roche. She reported consultancy with Kyowa Hakko Kirin, C4 Therapeutics, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

SOURCE: Mehta-Shah N et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 41.

In patients with T-cell lymphoma, allogeneic transplant can lead to durable remissions among patients who might otherwise have poor outcomes, results of a large retrospective observational study suggest.

Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) approached 40% and 5-year overall survival (OS) was over 50% in the study, which according to an investigator is the largest-ever reported patient series of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in T-cell lymphomas.

“We believe that eligible patients with relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphomas should be considered for consultation for allogeneic transplant by an expert clinician,” said investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.

“These decisions should occur on a patient by patient level – but it’s important to consider this,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, held virtually this year.

Notably, patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) had a higher rate of relapse yet similar overall survival (OS) compared to patients with common peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) subtypes, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Among PTCL subtypes, there was a trend toward improved PFS and OS for angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), compared with PTCL not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), she added.

Catherine M. Diefenbach, MD, director of the clinical lymphoma program at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, said the results of this retrospective study need to considered in light of the treatment-related risks associated with allogeneic transplantation.

Treatment-related mortality in the study ranged from about 8% to 24%, depending on the donor type, while acute and chronic graft-versus-host-disease (GvHD) was seen in more than 40% of patients, the reported data show.

“If I have a relapsed patient with AITL, I would look to this data and say that patients with AITL appear in a retrospective study to have a strong benefit,” Dr. Diefenbach said in an interview.

“For the other patients, you would describe both potential benefits and also discuss the treatment-associated risks – both the chronic GvHD and transplant-related mortality – and you’d have to balance the risk with the benefits for each individual case,” Dr. Diefenbach added.

The retrospective analysis by Dr. Mehta-Shah and colleagues included 508 consecutive T-cell lymphoma patients receiving allogeneic transplants at 12 academic centers between 2000 and 2019. The most common subtypes were PTCL-NOS in 26%, AITL in 16%, CTCL in 13%, and hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) in 7%. About 40% had a matched related donor (MRD) and 39% had a matched unrelated donor (MUD). The conditioning regimen was myeloablative in about a third of patients and nonmyeloablative in two-thirds.

At 5 years, PFS was 39.4% and OS was 50.8% for the overall study cohort, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, noting that the median time from relapse to death post allogeneic transplant was 10.2 months.

Patients in complete remission at the time of transplant fared better than others, with a median PFS of 44.6 months vs. 8.5 months for those in partial remission, 21.0 months in those with stable disease, and 3.5 months for those with progressive disease at time of transplant, data show.

Patients with common PTCL subtypes had better PFS compared to patients with CTCL, yet OS was similar, according to the investigator. At 5 years, PFS was 43.7% and 18.6%, respectively, for PTCL and CTCL, while OS was 53.1% and 44.0%, respectively.

There was a trend toward improved outcomes for AITL relative to PTCL-NOS and ALCL, with a median PFS of 51.4 months for AITL versus 18.3 months those other subtypes. Similarly, median OS was not reached for AITL versus 73.1 months in the other subtypes.

Treatment-related mortality was lowest for patients with MRDs, or 8.2% at 12 months, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, while patients with MUDs, mismatched donors, or haploidentical donors had treatment-related mortality of 13% to 16% at 12 months, and those with cord blood donors had treatment-related mortality of nearly 24% at 12 months.

Acute GvHD was observed in 46% of patients and chronic GvHD was seen in nearly 41%, the investigator added.

While these findings are important to consider in individual patient consultations, the study is nevertheless subject to limitations including patient selection and referral bias, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

“This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent transplant,” she said in a question-and-answer period. “Of course, that is heavily biased by who got to a transplant center, who was well enough to achieve transplant, and who had a donor or donor options, as well as their overall health and depth of remission,” the researcher said.

“I think this just represents what we could tell patients about what may happen to them once they embark on a transplant,” she added, “but really, there would be more prospective work needed to be done for what happens to patients overarching, and how many of them even get to a transplant consultation.”

Further studies should be done to develop predictive tools or biomarkers to determine who benefits from an allogeneic transplant, if there are predictors of relapse following allogeneic transplant, and what are the mechanisms of relapse following allogeneic transplant, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Dr. Mehta-Shah reported research funding from Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Verastem, Corvus, Innate Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech/Roche. She reported consultancy with Kyowa Hakko Kirin, C4 Therapeutics, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

SOURCE: Mehta-Shah N et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 41.

In patients with T-cell lymphoma, allogeneic transplant can lead to durable remissions among patients who might otherwise have poor outcomes, results of a large retrospective observational study suggest.

Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) approached 40% and 5-year overall survival (OS) was over 50% in the study, which according to an investigator is the largest-ever reported patient series of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in T-cell lymphomas.

“We believe that eligible patients with relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphomas should be considered for consultation for allogeneic transplant by an expert clinician,” said investigator Neha Mehta-Shah, MD, of Washington University in St. Louis.

“These decisions should occur on a patient by patient level – but it’s important to consider this,” Dr. Mehta-Shah said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, held virtually this year.

Notably, patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) had a higher rate of relapse yet similar overall survival (OS) compared to patients with common peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) subtypes, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Among PTCL subtypes, there was a trend toward improved PFS and OS for angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), compared with PTCL not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), she added.

Catherine M. Diefenbach, MD, director of the clinical lymphoma program at NYU Langone’s Perlmutter Cancer Center, said the results of this retrospective study need to considered in light of the treatment-related risks associated with allogeneic transplantation.

Treatment-related mortality in the study ranged from about 8% to 24%, depending on the donor type, while acute and chronic graft-versus-host-disease (GvHD) was seen in more than 40% of patients, the reported data show.

“If I have a relapsed patient with AITL, I would look to this data and say that patients with AITL appear in a retrospective study to have a strong benefit,” Dr. Diefenbach said in an interview.

“For the other patients, you would describe both potential benefits and also discuss the treatment-associated risks – both the chronic GvHD and transplant-related mortality – and you’d have to balance the risk with the benefits for each individual case,” Dr. Diefenbach added.

The retrospective analysis by Dr. Mehta-Shah and colleagues included 508 consecutive T-cell lymphoma patients receiving allogeneic transplants at 12 academic centers between 2000 and 2019. The most common subtypes were PTCL-NOS in 26%, AITL in 16%, CTCL in 13%, and hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) in 7%. About 40% had a matched related donor (MRD) and 39% had a matched unrelated donor (MUD). The conditioning regimen was myeloablative in about a third of patients and nonmyeloablative in two-thirds.

At 5 years, PFS was 39.4% and OS was 50.8% for the overall study cohort, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, noting that the median time from relapse to death post allogeneic transplant was 10.2 months.

Patients in complete remission at the time of transplant fared better than others, with a median PFS of 44.6 months vs. 8.5 months for those in partial remission, 21.0 months in those with stable disease, and 3.5 months for those with progressive disease at time of transplant, data show.

Patients with common PTCL subtypes had better PFS compared to patients with CTCL, yet OS was similar, according to the investigator. At 5 years, PFS was 43.7% and 18.6%, respectively, for PTCL and CTCL, while OS was 53.1% and 44.0%, respectively.

There was a trend toward improved outcomes for AITL relative to PTCL-NOS and ALCL, with a median PFS of 51.4 months for AITL versus 18.3 months those other subtypes. Similarly, median OS was not reached for AITL versus 73.1 months in the other subtypes.

Treatment-related mortality was lowest for patients with MRDs, or 8.2% at 12 months, Dr. Mehta-Shah reported, while patients with MUDs, mismatched donors, or haploidentical donors had treatment-related mortality of 13% to 16% at 12 months, and those with cord blood donors had treatment-related mortality of nearly 24% at 12 months.

Acute GvHD was observed in 46% of patients and chronic GvHD was seen in nearly 41%, the investigator added.

While these findings are important to consider in individual patient consultations, the study is nevertheless subject to limitations including patient selection and referral bias, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

“This was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent transplant,” she said in a question-and-answer period. “Of course, that is heavily biased by who got to a transplant center, who was well enough to achieve transplant, and who had a donor or donor options, as well as their overall health and depth of remission,” the researcher said.

“I think this just represents what we could tell patients about what may happen to them once they embark on a transplant,” she added, “but really, there would be more prospective work needed to be done for what happens to patients overarching, and how many of them even get to a transplant consultation.”

Further studies should be done to develop predictive tools or biomarkers to determine who benefits from an allogeneic transplant, if there are predictors of relapse following allogeneic transplant, and what are the mechanisms of relapse following allogeneic transplant, according to Dr. Mehta-Shah.

Dr. Mehta-Shah reported research funding from Bristol Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Verastem, Corvus, Innate Pharmaceuticals, and Genentech/Roche. She reported consultancy with Kyowa Hakko Kirin, C4 Therapeutics, and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
 

SOURCE: Mehta-Shah N et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 41.

Patients with hematologic disease who develop COVID-19 may experience substantial morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to recent registry data reported at the all-virtual annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Overall mortality was 28% for the first 250 patients entered into the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, researchers reported in an abstract of their study findings.

However, the burden of death and moderate-to-severe COVID-19 outcomes was highest in patients with poorer prognosis and those with relapsed/refractory hematological disease, they added.

The most commonly represented malignancies were acute leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and myeloma or amyloidosis, according to the report.

Taken together, the findings do support an “emerging consensus” that COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality is significant in these patients, authors said – however, the current findings may not be reason enough to support a change in treatment course for the underlying disease.

“We see no reason, based on our data, to withhold intensive therapies from patients with underlying hematologic malignancies and favorable prognoses, if aggressive supportive care is consistent with patient preferences,” wrote the researchers.

ASH President Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, said these registry findings are important to better understand how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting not only patients with hematologic diseases, but also individuals who experience COVID-19-related hematologic complications.

However, the findings are limited due to the heterogeneity of diseases, symptoms, and treatments represented in the registry, said Dr. Lee, associate director of the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“More data will be coming in, but I think this is an example of trying to harness real-world information to try to learn things until we get more controlled studies,” Dr. Lee said in a media briefing held in advance of the ASH meeting.
 

Comorbidities and more

Patients with blood cancers are often older and may have comorbidities such as diabetes or hypertension that have been linked to poor COVID-19 outcomes, according to the authors of the report, led by William A. Wood, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine with the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Moreover, these patients may have underlying immune dysfunction and may receive chemotherapy or immunotherapy that is “profoundly immunosuppressive,” Dr. Wood and coauthors said in their report.

To date, however, risks of morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection have not been well defined in this patient population, authors said.

More data is emerging now from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which includes data on patients positive for COVID-19 who have a past or present hematologic condition or have experienced a hematologic complication related to COVID-19.

All data from the registry is being made available through a dashboard on the ASH Research Collaborative website, which as of Dec. 1, 2020, included 693 complete cases.

The data cut in the ASH abstract includes the first 250 patients enrolled at 74 sites around the world, the authors said. The most common malignancies included acute leukemia in 33%, non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 27%, and myeloma or amyloidosis in 16%.

The most frequently reported symptoms included fever in 73%, cough in 67%, dyspnea in 50%, and fatigue in 40%, according to that report.

At the time of this data snapshot, treatment with COVID-19-directed therapies including hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin were common, reported in 76 and 59 patients, respectively, in the cohort.

Batch submissions from sites with high incidence of COVID-19 infection are ongoing. The registry has been expanded to include nonmalignant hematologic diseases, and the registry will continue to accumulate data as a resource for the hematology community.

Overall mortality was 28% at the time, according to the abstract, with nearly all of the deaths occurring in patients classified as having COVID-19 that was moderate (i.e., requiring hospitalization) or severe (i.e., requiring ICU admission).

“In some instances, death occurred after a decision was made to forgo ICU admission in favor of a palliative approach,” said Dr. Wood and coauthors in their report.

Dr. Wood reported research funding from Pfizer, consultancy with Teladoc/Best Doctors, and honoraria from the ASH Research Collaborative. Coauthors provided disclosures related to Celgene, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacyclics, and Amgen, among others.

SOURCE: Wood WA et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 215.

Patients with hematologic disease who develop COVID-19 may experience substantial morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to recent registry data reported at the all-virtual annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Overall mortality was 28% for the first 250 patients entered into the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, researchers reported in an abstract of their study findings.

However, the burden of death and moderate-to-severe COVID-19 outcomes was highest in patients with poorer prognosis and those with relapsed/refractory hematological disease, they added.

The most commonly represented malignancies were acute leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and myeloma or amyloidosis, according to the report.

Taken together, the findings do support an “emerging consensus” that COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality is significant in these patients, authors said – however, the current findings may not be reason enough to support a change in treatment course for the underlying disease.

“We see no reason, based on our data, to withhold intensive therapies from patients with underlying hematologic malignancies and favorable prognoses, if aggressive supportive care is consistent with patient preferences,” wrote the researchers.

ASH President Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, said these registry findings are important to better understand how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting not only patients with hematologic diseases, but also individuals who experience COVID-19-related hematologic complications.

However, the findings are limited due to the heterogeneity of diseases, symptoms, and treatments represented in the registry, said Dr. Lee, associate director of the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“More data will be coming in, but I think this is an example of trying to harness real-world information to try to learn things until we get more controlled studies,” Dr. Lee said in a media briefing held in advance of the ASH meeting.
 

Comorbidities and more

Patients with blood cancers are often older and may have comorbidities such as diabetes or hypertension that have been linked to poor COVID-19 outcomes, according to the authors of the report, led by William A. Wood, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine with the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Moreover, these patients may have underlying immune dysfunction and may receive chemotherapy or immunotherapy that is “profoundly immunosuppressive,” Dr. Wood and coauthors said in their report.

To date, however, risks of morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection have not been well defined in this patient population, authors said.

More data is emerging now from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which includes data on patients positive for COVID-19 who have a past or present hematologic condition or have experienced a hematologic complication related to COVID-19.

All data from the registry is being made available through a dashboard on the ASH Research Collaborative website, which as of Dec. 1, 2020, included 693 complete cases.

The data cut in the ASH abstract includes the first 250 patients enrolled at 74 sites around the world, the authors said. The most common malignancies included acute leukemia in 33%, non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 27%, and myeloma or amyloidosis in 16%.

The most frequently reported symptoms included fever in 73%, cough in 67%, dyspnea in 50%, and fatigue in 40%, according to that report.

At the time of this data snapshot, treatment with COVID-19-directed therapies including hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin were common, reported in 76 and 59 patients, respectively, in the cohort.

Batch submissions from sites with high incidence of COVID-19 infection are ongoing. The registry has been expanded to include nonmalignant hematologic diseases, and the registry will continue to accumulate data as a resource for the hematology community.

Overall mortality was 28% at the time, according to the abstract, with nearly all of the deaths occurring in patients classified as having COVID-19 that was moderate (i.e., requiring hospitalization) or severe (i.e., requiring ICU admission).

“In some instances, death occurred after a decision was made to forgo ICU admission in favor of a palliative approach,” said Dr. Wood and coauthors in their report.

Dr. Wood reported research funding from Pfizer, consultancy with Teladoc/Best Doctors, and honoraria from the ASH Research Collaborative. Coauthors provided disclosures related to Celgene, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacyclics, and Amgen, among others.

SOURCE: Wood WA et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 215.

Patients with hematologic disease who develop COVID-19 may experience substantial morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to recent registry data reported at the all-virtual annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Overall mortality was 28% for the first 250 patients entered into the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, researchers reported in an abstract of their study findings.

However, the burden of death and moderate-to-severe COVID-19 outcomes was highest in patients with poorer prognosis and those with relapsed/refractory hematological disease, they added.

The most commonly represented malignancies were acute leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and myeloma or amyloidosis, according to the report.

Taken together, the findings do support an “emerging consensus” that COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality is significant in these patients, authors said – however, the current findings may not be reason enough to support a change in treatment course for the underlying disease.

“We see no reason, based on our data, to withhold intensive therapies from patients with underlying hematologic malignancies and favorable prognoses, if aggressive supportive care is consistent with patient preferences,” wrote the researchers.

ASH President Stephanie Lee, MD, MPH, said these registry findings are important to better understand how SARS-CoV-2 is affecting not only patients with hematologic diseases, but also individuals who experience COVID-19-related hematologic complications.

However, the findings are limited due to the heterogeneity of diseases, symptoms, and treatments represented in the registry, said Dr. Lee, associate director of the clinical research division at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle.

“More data will be coming in, but I think this is an example of trying to harness real-world information to try to learn things until we get more controlled studies,” Dr. Lee said in a media briefing held in advance of the ASH meeting.
 

Comorbidities and more

Patients with blood cancers are often older and may have comorbidities such as diabetes or hypertension that have been linked to poor COVID-19 outcomes, according to the authors of the report, led by William A. Wood, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine with the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.

Moreover, these patients may have underlying immune dysfunction and may receive chemotherapy or immunotherapy that is “profoundly immunosuppressive,” Dr. Wood and coauthors said in their report.

To date, however, risks of morbidity and mortality related to SARS-CoV-2 infection have not been well defined in this patient population, authors said.

More data is emerging now from the ASH Research Collaborative COVID-19 Registry for Hematology, which includes data on patients positive for COVID-19 who have a past or present hematologic condition or have experienced a hematologic complication related to COVID-19.

All data from the registry is being made available through a dashboard on the ASH Research Collaborative website, which as of Dec. 1, 2020, included 693 complete cases.

The data cut in the ASH abstract includes the first 250 patients enrolled at 74 sites around the world, the authors said. The most common malignancies included acute leukemia in 33%, non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 27%, and myeloma or amyloidosis in 16%.

The most frequently reported symptoms included fever in 73%, cough in 67%, dyspnea in 50%, and fatigue in 40%, according to that report.

At the time of this data snapshot, treatment with COVID-19-directed therapies including hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin were common, reported in 76 and 59 patients, respectively, in the cohort.

Batch submissions from sites with high incidence of COVID-19 infection are ongoing. The registry has been expanded to include nonmalignant hematologic diseases, and the registry will continue to accumulate data as a resource for the hematology community.

Overall mortality was 28% at the time, according to the abstract, with nearly all of the deaths occurring in patients classified as having COVID-19 that was moderate (i.e., requiring hospitalization) or severe (i.e., requiring ICU admission).

“In some instances, death occurred after a decision was made to forgo ICU admission in favor of a palliative approach,” said Dr. Wood and coauthors in their report.

Dr. Wood reported research funding from Pfizer, consultancy with Teladoc/Best Doctors, and honoraria from the ASH Research Collaborative. Coauthors provided disclosures related to Celgene, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, Pharmacyclics, and Amgen, among others.

SOURCE: Wood WA et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 215.

New results suggest that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), which is typically reserved for younger patients, may well be offered to older patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

In patients with a median age of 66 years who had received a donor transplant, the overall survival (OS) at 3 years was almost double compared with patients who did not receive a transplant – 47.9% vs. 26.6% for the “no-donor” group.  

The finding comes from the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) Study 1102 (NCT02016781) presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2020 virtual meeting.

“This study conclusively solidifies the role of transplantation in older individuals with MDS,” presenter Corey Cutler, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston, said in an interview.

Coauthor Ryotaro Nakamura, MD, of City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview that this was the largest and first trial in the United States to determine in a prospective fashion that allogeneic stem cell transplantation offers a significant survival in older patients. “There was more than a 20% benefit in OS in this age group,” he said.

“This is an incredibly important study,” said Andrew Brunner, MD, medical oncologist at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, who was approached for comment. He explained that for years early transplant was recommended as important for patients who have higher-risk MDS. “This study validates this in a prospective, pseudo-randomized (donor/no donor) fashion,” he said in an interview.

“[This study] is really a seminal advance in the care of patients with MDS. Transplant should be integrated into the care algorithm, if not already, and we as a community need to build upon this study further,” Dr. Brunner added.

Several experts in addition to the authors hailed the study as practice changing.

Robert A. Brodsky, MD, ASH, director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that in younger patients bone marrow transplant is the standard of care for aggressive MDS, but a lot of practices do not refer older patients or those with comorbidities for transplant and prefer to give these patients palliative care with hypomethylating agents for fear that the transplant process would be too toxic.

“There has been an institutional bias to do transplant in older patients, but until now there was no randomized clinical trial to show that this is the right choice. Now we have the data,” Dr Brodsky said, predicting that “this study will change the standard of care.”

Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agreed. “We should congratulate all the investigators and our patients who participated in this study. Reduced intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation improved disease control and overall survival with similar quality of life.

“I will recommend all patients with intermediate-2 or higher-risk MDS to be evaluated by the transplant team at diagnosis and eligible patients should be considered for a transplant,” Dr. Fung said in an interview.

Immediate impact on clinical practice

Lead author Dr. Cutler suggested that the study results had an immediate impact for changing clinical practice. “Individuals between the ages of 50 and 75 years with intermediate-2 or high-risk MDS who are eligible to undergo reduced-intensity transplantation had superior outcomes if they had a suitable donor for transplantation in comparison with those who did not have a donor,” he said.

Dr. Cutler further explained that many community-based hematologists do not refer their patients for transplantation. In addition, there is a lack of a uniform payer position for transplantation for MDS, he noted. Also, there is a lack of understanding of the cost-effectiveness of transplantation in comparison to nontransplant strategies, he suggested.

“Transplant is curative for MDS,” he emphasized. Most transplant recipients will eventually become transfusion-independent within weeks to months from transplant.

“We do transplants in this age group all the time,” Dr. Cutler noted. He said that academic centers will continue to offer transplants, and suggested that community oncologists encourage referral to transplant centers early in a patient’s disease course to maximize search time and provide patients all potential options for therapy.

Dr. Brunner agreed and noted that there is a need to build capacity for higher transplant volume, and in general physicians should seek ways to expand this treatment option to more patients. “At this time, allogeneic transplant still requires close collaboration with referral centers; that said, more and more we are able to work closely with colleagues in the community to share management, including earlier after the actual transplant,” he said.

He noted that one silver lining of the pandemic in 2020 has been increased use of telemedicine to collaborate. “Ongoing advances may be able to further encourage these virtual connections to enhance the entire patient care experience,” Dr. Brunner said.
 

Reimbursement by CMS for Medicare recipients

Despite the data showing benefit, allogeneic stem cell transplantation is not offered to older individuals with high-risk MDS and is not covered by Medicare in the United States, Dr. Cutler noted in his presentation.

“This study was spurred by the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] ruling for transplantation in MDS and the story has come full circle,” Aaron T. Gerds, MD, MS, noted at a preconference press briefing. Dr. Gerds is chair of the ASH Committee on Communications and assistant professor at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland.

Dr. Nakamura explained that in 2010 a CMS decision memo noted that the evidence of a benefit for transplantation in MDS was lacking and Medicare would not cover transplant unless patients were enrolled in a clinical study. That memo outlined criteria that a clinical trial would have to address before it could consider reimbursement for Medicare beneficiaries.

“The BMT CTN Study 1102 was one of two studies that met the criteria set by CMS,” Dr. Nakamura said, noting that the data are being prepared for CMS review.

“This study will likely be the deciding factor for CMS to begin to cover payment for transplantation for MDS,” said Dr. Cutler.

The other study, published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology, showed that outcomes for patients older than ager 65 were similar to those of patients aged 55-65.
 

BMT CTN 1102 study details

Dr. Cutler noted that the study was designed to address the issue of whether transplantation was beneficial to Medicare-aged individuals with high-risk MDS, and the trial had been approved by Medicare.

The multicenter study enrolled patients who were between ages 50 and 75 years and had newly diagnosed MDS of higher risk (International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS] intermediate-2 or higher) and were candidates for reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT.

Patients were enrolled prior to a formal donor search and were initially assigned to the “no donor” group and reassigned to the donor group when a suitable donor (matched sibling or unrelated donor) was identified. Patients underwent RIC HCT according to institution protocol.

Of 384 patients, 260 received RIC HCT and 124 received hypomethylating therapy. Median follow-up was 34.2 months for the donor group and 26.9 months for the no-donor group.

The two arms were well balanced with respect to age (median 66 years), gender, disease risk [two-thirds of the patients had an intermediate-2 and one third had a high-risk MDS], and response to hypomethylating therapy. The majority of subjects in the donor arm had unrelated donors and more than one-third had a high comorbidity score, Dr. Cutler indicated.

At 3 years, absolute improvement in OS was 21.3% in favor of donor-arm subjects. Leukemia-free survival was also higher in the donor group: 35.8% vs. 20.6% for the no-donor group.

Improvement in OS for patients receiving transplants was seen across all patient subtypes, regardless of age, response to hypomethylating therapy, and IPSS score. “Treatment effects were seen in any subgroup, but particularly in subjects above age 65,” Dr. Cutler stressed.

In an as-treated analysis that excluded subjects who died, the treatment effects were even more pronounced, with an absolute improvement in OS of 31.4% (47.4% vs. 16% for the no-donor arm) and improvement in leukemia-free survival of 28.4% (39.3% vs. 10.9% for the no-donor arm).

In 25 patients in the no-donor arm who subsequently went on to receive alternate donor transplant, the 3-year OS and leukemia-free survival was 58.5%, underscoring the potential value of alternate donor transplant, Dr. Cutler noted.

Dr. Nakamura emphasized that the gains in survival benefits were not seen at the expense of quality of life, as preliminary results showed no difference in quality-of-life measures across those who received donor transplants and those who did not.

Dr. Brunner noted that physicians often highlight the toxicities of transplant as a consideration for whether to proceed, and while there are toxicities specific to transplant that should be considered, in this study it is seen that, even early on, survival is improved in those patients who move toward early transplant. “It also underscores the limitations of current nontransplant treatments for MDS – there is much room to improve,” he said.
 

Role for alternate donors

Dr. Cutler noted that the majority of patients in the no-donor group died without transplantation. “We need to establish the role of alternative donor transplantation in this population,” he said. Dr. Nakamura indicated that mismatched donors and haploidentical donors such as family donors and umbilical cord blood may be alternate donor sources; outcomes from published studies show similar results, he said.

However, Dr. Brunner noted that the study looked only at traditional fully matched donors, leaving open some questions about alternative donor options such as haploidentical donors and umbilical cord blood donation.

“Our experience in other areas of transplant would suggest that these donor sources may be as good as traditional fully matched options, when using newer conditioning and prophylaxis regimens,” Dr. Brunner said.

Dr. Cutler added, “With the increased acceptance of alternate transplant modalities, we need to determine the outcomes associated with these in prospective trials.”

“I think a significant consideration here as well is health equity,” Dr. Brunner said. “Donor options vary according to race and ethnicity and we need to be proactive as a community to ensure that all MDS patients have access to a potentially curative option early in their diagnosis.”

Dr. Cutler reports consultancy for Mesoblast, Generon, Medsenic, Jazz, Kadmon, and Incyte. Dr. Nakamura reports relationships with Magenta Therapeutics, Kyowa-Kirin, Alexion, Merck, NapaJen Pharma, Kadmon Corporation, Celgene, and Viracor. Dr. Fung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brodsky reports receiving funding from and being on the board/advisory committee for Achillion Pharmaceuticals, consults with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and receives honoraria from UpToDate. Dr. Brunner reports relationships with Biogen, Acceleron Pharma Inc, Celgene/BMS, Forty Seven Inc, Jazz Pharma, Novartis, Takeda, Xcenda, GSK, Janssen, and AstraZeneca.

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

New results suggest that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), which is typically reserved for younger patients, may well be offered to older patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

In patients with a median age of 66 years who had received a donor transplant, the overall survival (OS) at 3 years was almost double compared with patients who did not receive a transplant – 47.9% vs. 26.6% for the “no-donor” group.  

The finding comes from the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) Study 1102 (NCT02016781) presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2020 virtual meeting.

“This study conclusively solidifies the role of transplantation in older individuals with MDS,” presenter Corey Cutler, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston, said in an interview.

Coauthor Ryotaro Nakamura, MD, of City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview that this was the largest and first trial in the United States to determine in a prospective fashion that allogeneic stem cell transplantation offers a significant survival in older patients. “There was more than a 20% benefit in OS in this age group,” he said.

“This is an incredibly important study,” said Andrew Brunner, MD, medical oncologist at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, who was approached for comment. He explained that for years early transplant was recommended as important for patients who have higher-risk MDS. “This study validates this in a prospective, pseudo-randomized (donor/no donor) fashion,” he said in an interview.

“[This study] is really a seminal advance in the care of patients with MDS. Transplant should be integrated into the care algorithm, if not already, and we as a community need to build upon this study further,” Dr. Brunner added.

Several experts in addition to the authors hailed the study as practice changing.

Robert A. Brodsky, MD, ASH, director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that in younger patients bone marrow transplant is the standard of care for aggressive MDS, but a lot of practices do not refer older patients or those with comorbidities for transplant and prefer to give these patients palliative care with hypomethylating agents for fear that the transplant process would be too toxic.

“There has been an institutional bias to do transplant in older patients, but until now there was no randomized clinical trial to show that this is the right choice. Now we have the data,” Dr Brodsky said, predicting that “this study will change the standard of care.”

Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agreed. “We should congratulate all the investigators and our patients who participated in this study. Reduced intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation improved disease control and overall survival with similar quality of life.

“I will recommend all patients with intermediate-2 or higher-risk MDS to be evaluated by the transplant team at diagnosis and eligible patients should be considered for a transplant,” Dr. Fung said in an interview.

Immediate impact on clinical practice

Lead author Dr. Cutler suggested that the study results had an immediate impact for changing clinical practice. “Individuals between the ages of 50 and 75 years with intermediate-2 or high-risk MDS who are eligible to undergo reduced-intensity transplantation had superior outcomes if they had a suitable donor for transplantation in comparison with those who did not have a donor,” he said.

Dr. Cutler further explained that many community-based hematologists do not refer their patients for transplantation. In addition, there is a lack of a uniform payer position for transplantation for MDS, he noted. Also, there is a lack of understanding of the cost-effectiveness of transplantation in comparison to nontransplant strategies, he suggested.

“Transplant is curative for MDS,” he emphasized. Most transplant recipients will eventually become transfusion-independent within weeks to months from transplant.

“We do transplants in this age group all the time,” Dr. Cutler noted. He said that academic centers will continue to offer transplants, and suggested that community oncologists encourage referral to transplant centers early in a patient’s disease course to maximize search time and provide patients all potential options for therapy.

Dr. Brunner agreed and noted that there is a need to build capacity for higher transplant volume, and in general physicians should seek ways to expand this treatment option to more patients. “At this time, allogeneic transplant still requires close collaboration with referral centers; that said, more and more we are able to work closely with colleagues in the community to share management, including earlier after the actual transplant,” he said.

He noted that one silver lining of the pandemic in 2020 has been increased use of telemedicine to collaborate. “Ongoing advances may be able to further encourage these virtual connections to enhance the entire patient care experience,” Dr. Brunner said.
 

Reimbursement by CMS for Medicare recipients

Despite the data showing benefit, allogeneic stem cell transplantation is not offered to older individuals with high-risk MDS and is not covered by Medicare in the United States, Dr. Cutler noted in his presentation.

“This study was spurred by the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] ruling for transplantation in MDS and the story has come full circle,” Aaron T. Gerds, MD, MS, noted at a preconference press briefing. Dr. Gerds is chair of the ASH Committee on Communications and assistant professor at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland.

Dr. Nakamura explained that in 2010 a CMS decision memo noted that the evidence of a benefit for transplantation in MDS was lacking and Medicare would not cover transplant unless patients were enrolled in a clinical study. That memo outlined criteria that a clinical trial would have to address before it could consider reimbursement for Medicare beneficiaries.

“The BMT CTN Study 1102 was one of two studies that met the criteria set by CMS,” Dr. Nakamura said, noting that the data are being prepared for CMS review.

“This study will likely be the deciding factor for CMS to begin to cover payment for transplantation for MDS,” said Dr. Cutler.

The other study, published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology, showed that outcomes for patients older than ager 65 were similar to those of patients aged 55-65.
 

BMT CTN 1102 study details

Dr. Cutler noted that the study was designed to address the issue of whether transplantation was beneficial to Medicare-aged individuals with high-risk MDS, and the trial had been approved by Medicare.

The multicenter study enrolled patients who were between ages 50 and 75 years and had newly diagnosed MDS of higher risk (International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS] intermediate-2 or higher) and were candidates for reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT.

Patients were enrolled prior to a formal donor search and were initially assigned to the “no donor” group and reassigned to the donor group when a suitable donor (matched sibling or unrelated donor) was identified. Patients underwent RIC HCT according to institution protocol.

Of 384 patients, 260 received RIC HCT and 124 received hypomethylating therapy. Median follow-up was 34.2 months for the donor group and 26.9 months for the no-donor group.

The two arms were well balanced with respect to age (median 66 years), gender, disease risk [two-thirds of the patients had an intermediate-2 and one third had a high-risk MDS], and response to hypomethylating therapy. The majority of subjects in the donor arm had unrelated donors and more than one-third had a high comorbidity score, Dr. Cutler indicated.

At 3 years, absolute improvement in OS was 21.3% in favor of donor-arm subjects. Leukemia-free survival was also higher in the donor group: 35.8% vs. 20.6% for the no-donor group.

Improvement in OS for patients receiving transplants was seen across all patient subtypes, regardless of age, response to hypomethylating therapy, and IPSS score. “Treatment effects were seen in any subgroup, but particularly in subjects above age 65,” Dr. Cutler stressed.

In an as-treated analysis that excluded subjects who died, the treatment effects were even more pronounced, with an absolute improvement in OS of 31.4% (47.4% vs. 16% for the no-donor arm) and improvement in leukemia-free survival of 28.4% (39.3% vs. 10.9% for the no-donor arm).

In 25 patients in the no-donor arm who subsequently went on to receive alternate donor transplant, the 3-year OS and leukemia-free survival was 58.5%, underscoring the potential value of alternate donor transplant, Dr. Cutler noted.

Dr. Nakamura emphasized that the gains in survival benefits were not seen at the expense of quality of life, as preliminary results showed no difference in quality-of-life measures across those who received donor transplants and those who did not.

Dr. Brunner noted that physicians often highlight the toxicities of transplant as a consideration for whether to proceed, and while there are toxicities specific to transplant that should be considered, in this study it is seen that, even early on, survival is improved in those patients who move toward early transplant. “It also underscores the limitations of current nontransplant treatments for MDS – there is much room to improve,” he said.
 

Role for alternate donors

Dr. Cutler noted that the majority of patients in the no-donor group died without transplantation. “We need to establish the role of alternative donor transplantation in this population,” he said. Dr. Nakamura indicated that mismatched donors and haploidentical donors such as family donors and umbilical cord blood may be alternate donor sources; outcomes from published studies show similar results, he said.

However, Dr. Brunner noted that the study looked only at traditional fully matched donors, leaving open some questions about alternative donor options such as haploidentical donors and umbilical cord blood donation.

“Our experience in other areas of transplant would suggest that these donor sources may be as good as traditional fully matched options, when using newer conditioning and prophylaxis regimens,” Dr. Brunner said.

Dr. Cutler added, “With the increased acceptance of alternate transplant modalities, we need to determine the outcomes associated with these in prospective trials.”

“I think a significant consideration here as well is health equity,” Dr. Brunner said. “Donor options vary according to race and ethnicity and we need to be proactive as a community to ensure that all MDS patients have access to a potentially curative option early in their diagnosis.”

Dr. Cutler reports consultancy for Mesoblast, Generon, Medsenic, Jazz, Kadmon, and Incyte. Dr. Nakamura reports relationships with Magenta Therapeutics, Kyowa-Kirin, Alexion, Merck, NapaJen Pharma, Kadmon Corporation, Celgene, and Viracor. Dr. Fung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brodsky reports receiving funding from and being on the board/advisory committee for Achillion Pharmaceuticals, consults with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and receives honoraria from UpToDate. Dr. Brunner reports relationships with Biogen, Acceleron Pharma Inc, Celgene/BMS, Forty Seven Inc, Jazz Pharma, Novartis, Takeda, Xcenda, GSK, Janssen, and AstraZeneca.

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

New results suggest that allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), which is typically reserved for younger patients, may well be offered to older patients with advanced myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS).

In patients with a median age of 66 years who had received a donor transplant, the overall survival (OS) at 3 years was almost double compared with patients who did not receive a transplant – 47.9% vs. 26.6% for the “no-donor” group.  

The finding comes from the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) Study 1102 (NCT02016781) presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2020 virtual meeting.

“This study conclusively solidifies the role of transplantation in older individuals with MDS,” presenter Corey Cutler, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center, Boston, said in an interview.

Coauthor Ryotaro Nakamura, MD, of City of Hope, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview that this was the largest and first trial in the United States to determine in a prospective fashion that allogeneic stem cell transplantation offers a significant survival in older patients. “There was more than a 20% benefit in OS in this age group,” he said.

“This is an incredibly important study,” said Andrew Brunner, MD, medical oncologist at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, who was approached for comment. He explained that for years early transplant was recommended as important for patients who have higher-risk MDS. “This study validates this in a prospective, pseudo-randomized (donor/no donor) fashion,” he said in an interview.

“[This study] is really a seminal advance in the care of patients with MDS. Transplant should be integrated into the care algorithm, if not already, and we as a community need to build upon this study further,” Dr. Brunner added.

Several experts in addition to the authors hailed the study as practice changing.

Robert A. Brodsky, MD, ASH, director of the division of hematology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that in younger patients bone marrow transplant is the standard of care for aggressive MDS, but a lot of practices do not refer older patients or those with comorbidities for transplant and prefer to give these patients palliative care with hypomethylating agents for fear that the transplant process would be too toxic.

“There has been an institutional bias to do transplant in older patients, but until now there was no randomized clinical trial to show that this is the right choice. Now we have the data,” Dr Brodsky said, predicting that “this study will change the standard of care.”

Henry Fung, MD, chair of the department of bone marrow transplant and cellular therapies at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, agreed. “We should congratulate all the investigators and our patients who participated in this study. Reduced intensity allogeneic stem cell transplantation improved disease control and overall survival with similar quality of life.

“I will recommend all patients with intermediate-2 or higher-risk MDS to be evaluated by the transplant team at diagnosis and eligible patients should be considered for a transplant,” Dr. Fung said in an interview.

Immediate impact on clinical practice

Lead author Dr. Cutler suggested that the study results had an immediate impact for changing clinical practice. “Individuals between the ages of 50 and 75 years with intermediate-2 or high-risk MDS who are eligible to undergo reduced-intensity transplantation had superior outcomes if they had a suitable donor for transplantation in comparison with those who did not have a donor,” he said.

Dr. Cutler further explained that many community-based hematologists do not refer their patients for transplantation. In addition, there is a lack of a uniform payer position for transplantation for MDS, he noted. Also, there is a lack of understanding of the cost-effectiveness of transplantation in comparison to nontransplant strategies, he suggested.

“Transplant is curative for MDS,” he emphasized. Most transplant recipients will eventually become transfusion-independent within weeks to months from transplant.

“We do transplants in this age group all the time,” Dr. Cutler noted. He said that academic centers will continue to offer transplants, and suggested that community oncologists encourage referral to transplant centers early in a patient’s disease course to maximize search time and provide patients all potential options for therapy.

Dr. Brunner agreed and noted that there is a need to build capacity for higher transplant volume, and in general physicians should seek ways to expand this treatment option to more patients. “At this time, allogeneic transplant still requires close collaboration with referral centers; that said, more and more we are able to work closely with colleagues in the community to share management, including earlier after the actual transplant,” he said.

He noted that one silver lining of the pandemic in 2020 has been increased use of telemedicine to collaborate. “Ongoing advances may be able to further encourage these virtual connections to enhance the entire patient care experience,” Dr. Brunner said.
 

Reimbursement by CMS for Medicare recipients

Despite the data showing benefit, allogeneic stem cell transplantation is not offered to older individuals with high-risk MDS and is not covered by Medicare in the United States, Dr. Cutler noted in his presentation.

“This study was spurred by the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] ruling for transplantation in MDS and the story has come full circle,” Aaron T. Gerds, MD, MS, noted at a preconference press briefing. Dr. Gerds is chair of the ASH Committee on Communications and assistant professor at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland.

Dr. Nakamura explained that in 2010 a CMS decision memo noted that the evidence of a benefit for transplantation in MDS was lacking and Medicare would not cover transplant unless patients were enrolled in a clinical study. That memo outlined criteria that a clinical trial would have to address before it could consider reimbursement for Medicare beneficiaries.

“The BMT CTN Study 1102 was one of two studies that met the criteria set by CMS,” Dr. Nakamura said, noting that the data are being prepared for CMS review.

“This study will likely be the deciding factor for CMS to begin to cover payment for transplantation for MDS,” said Dr. Cutler.

The other study, published earlier this year in JAMA Oncology, showed that outcomes for patients older than ager 65 were similar to those of patients aged 55-65.
 

BMT CTN 1102 study details

Dr. Cutler noted that the study was designed to address the issue of whether transplantation was beneficial to Medicare-aged individuals with high-risk MDS, and the trial had been approved by Medicare.

The multicenter study enrolled patients who were between ages 50 and 75 years and had newly diagnosed MDS of higher risk (International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS] intermediate-2 or higher) and were candidates for reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT.

Patients were enrolled prior to a formal donor search and were initially assigned to the “no donor” group and reassigned to the donor group when a suitable donor (matched sibling or unrelated donor) was identified. Patients underwent RIC HCT according to institution protocol.

Of 384 patients, 260 received RIC HCT and 124 received hypomethylating therapy. Median follow-up was 34.2 months for the donor group and 26.9 months for the no-donor group.

The two arms were well balanced with respect to age (median 66 years), gender, disease risk [two-thirds of the patients had an intermediate-2 and one third had a high-risk MDS], and response to hypomethylating therapy. The majority of subjects in the donor arm had unrelated donors and more than one-third had a high comorbidity score, Dr. Cutler indicated.

At 3 years, absolute improvement in OS was 21.3% in favor of donor-arm subjects. Leukemia-free survival was also higher in the donor group: 35.8% vs. 20.6% for the no-donor group.

Improvement in OS for patients receiving transplants was seen across all patient subtypes, regardless of age, response to hypomethylating therapy, and IPSS score. “Treatment effects were seen in any subgroup, but particularly in subjects above age 65,” Dr. Cutler stressed.

In an as-treated analysis that excluded subjects who died, the treatment effects were even more pronounced, with an absolute improvement in OS of 31.4% (47.4% vs. 16% for the no-donor arm) and improvement in leukemia-free survival of 28.4% (39.3% vs. 10.9% for the no-donor arm).

In 25 patients in the no-donor arm who subsequently went on to receive alternate donor transplant, the 3-year OS and leukemia-free survival was 58.5%, underscoring the potential value of alternate donor transplant, Dr. Cutler noted.

Dr. Nakamura emphasized that the gains in survival benefits were not seen at the expense of quality of life, as preliminary results showed no difference in quality-of-life measures across those who received donor transplants and those who did not.

Dr. Brunner noted that physicians often highlight the toxicities of transplant as a consideration for whether to proceed, and while there are toxicities specific to transplant that should be considered, in this study it is seen that, even early on, survival is improved in those patients who move toward early transplant. “It also underscores the limitations of current nontransplant treatments for MDS – there is much room to improve,” he said.
 

Role for alternate donors

Dr. Cutler noted that the majority of patients in the no-donor group died without transplantation. “We need to establish the role of alternative donor transplantation in this population,” he said. Dr. Nakamura indicated that mismatched donors and haploidentical donors such as family donors and umbilical cord blood may be alternate donor sources; outcomes from published studies show similar results, he said.

However, Dr. Brunner noted that the study looked only at traditional fully matched donors, leaving open some questions about alternative donor options such as haploidentical donors and umbilical cord blood donation.

“Our experience in other areas of transplant would suggest that these donor sources may be as good as traditional fully matched options, when using newer conditioning and prophylaxis regimens,” Dr. Brunner said.

Dr. Cutler added, “With the increased acceptance of alternate transplant modalities, we need to determine the outcomes associated with these in prospective trials.”

“I think a significant consideration here as well is health equity,” Dr. Brunner said. “Donor options vary according to race and ethnicity and we need to be proactive as a community to ensure that all MDS patients have access to a potentially curative option early in their diagnosis.”

Dr. Cutler reports consultancy for Mesoblast, Generon, Medsenic, Jazz, Kadmon, and Incyte. Dr. Nakamura reports relationships with Magenta Therapeutics, Kyowa-Kirin, Alexion, Merck, NapaJen Pharma, Kadmon Corporation, Celgene, and Viracor. Dr. Fung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Brodsky reports receiving funding from and being on the board/advisory committee for Achillion Pharmaceuticals, consults with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, and receives honoraria from UpToDate. Dr. Brunner reports relationships with Biogen, Acceleron Pharma Inc, Celgene/BMS, Forty Seven Inc, Jazz Pharma, Novartis, Takeda, Xcenda, GSK, Janssen, and AstraZeneca.

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

Primary thromboprophylaxis is feasible and worth considering for high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer who are initiating systemic chemotherapy, according to Marc Carrier, MD.

Risk scores can identify patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and treatments that are effective and associated with low bleeding risk are available, Dr. Carrier explained at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

However, caution is advised in patients with certain types of cancer, including some gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers, because of the possibility of increased major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding risk, he said.
 

VTE and cancer

VTE is relatively rare in the general population, occurring in about 1 or 2 per 1,000 people annually. The risk increases 4.1-fold in patients with cancer, and 6.5-fold in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

“So just putting these numbers together, we’re no longer talking about 1 in 1,000, but 1 in 200, so [this is] something that is very common among cancer patients,” said Dr. Carrier, a professor at the University of Ottawa and chief of the division of hematology at The Ottawa Hospital.

The mortality rate associated with cancer-associated thrombosis is about 9%, comparable to that associated with infection in the cancer outpatient setting, which underscores the importance of educating patients about the signs and symptoms of VTE so they can seek medical treatment quickly if necessary, he added.

It may also be useful to discuss prophylaxis or other ways to prevent venous thromboembolic complications with certain patients, he said, noting that in an observational cohort study of nearly 600 patients at the University of Ottawa, 25% of those initiating chemotherapy were identified as intermediate or high risk using the validated Khorana risk score, and thus would likely benefit from thromboprophylaxis.
 

Risk assessment

The Khorana risk score assesses VTE risk based on cancer site, blood counts, and body mass index. It is simple to use and has been validated in more than 20,000 people in multiple countries, Dr. Carrier said.

In a well-known validation study, Ay et al. showed a VTE complication rate of 10% in patients with a Khorana risk score of 2 or higher who were followed up to 6 months.

“This is huge,” Dr. Carrier stressed. “This is much higher than what we tolerate for all sorts of different populations for which we would recommend anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis.”

The question is whether the risk score can be helpful in a real-world clinic setting, he said, adding: “I’d like to think the answer to that is yes.”

In the University of Ottawa cohort study, 11% of high-risk patients experienced a VTE complication, compared with 4% of those with lower risk, suggesting that the validation data for the Khorana risk score is not only accurate, it is “actually applicable in real-world practice, and you can use it in your own center,” he said.

Further, recent studies have demonstrated that treatment based on Khorana risk score assessment reduces VTE complications.
 

Prophylaxis options

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been shown in several studies to be associated with a significant relative VTE risk reduction in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy – with only a slight, nonsignificant increase in the risk of major bleeding.

However, the absolute benefit was small, and LMWH is “parenteral, relatively costly, and, based on that, although we showed relatively good risk-benefit ratio, it never really got translated to clinical practice,” Dr. Carrier said.

In fact, a 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines update recommended against routine thromboprophylaxis in this setting, but stated that it could be considered in select high-risk patients identified using a validated risk-assessment tool.

The guidelines noted that “individual risk factors such as biomarkers and cancer site don’t reliably identify high-risk patients.”

More recent data provide additional support for risk assessment and treatment based on Khorana risk score of 2 or higher.

The AVERT trial, for which Dr. Carrier was the first author, showed that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) apixaban reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in patients with Khorana score of 2 or higher (4.2% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 overall, and 1.0 vs. 7.3; HR, 0.14 on treatment), and the CASSINI trial showed that another DOAC, rivaroxaban, reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in those with Khorana score of 2 or higher (5.9 vs. 6.7; HR, 0.6 overall, and 2.6 vs. 6.4; HR, 0.40 on treatment). The differences in the on-treatment populations were statistically significant.

The two trials, which included a variety of tumor types, showed similar rates of major bleeding, with an absolute difference of about 1% between treatment and placebo, which was not statistically significant in the on-treatment analyses (HR, 1.89 in AVERT and HR, 1.96 in CASSINI).

A systematic review of these trials showed an overall significant decrease in VTE complication risk with treatment in high-risk patients, and a nonstatistically significant major bleeding risk increase.

Based on these findings, ASCO guidelines were updated in 2020 to state that “routine thromboprophylaxis should not be offered to all patients with cancer. ... However, high-risk outpatients with cancer may be offered thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban or LMWH, providing there are no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug-drug interactions, and after having a full discussion with patients ... to make sure they understand the risk-benefit ratio and the rationale for that particular recommendation,” he said.
 

Real-world implementation

Implementing this approach in the clinic setting requires a practical model, such as the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTEPACC) program, a prospective quality improvement research initiative developed in collaboration with the Jeffords Institute for Quality at the University of Vermont Medical Center and described in a recent report, Dr. Carrier said.

The “Vermont model” is “really a comprehensive model that includes identifying patients with the electronic medical records, gathering the formal education and insight from other health care providers like pharmacists and nurses in order to really come up with personalized care for your patients,” he explained.

In 918 outpatients with cancer who were included in the program, VTE awareness increased from less than 5% before VTEPACC to nearly 82% during the implementation phase and 94.7% after 2 years, with nearly 94% of high-risk patients receiving VTE prophylaxis at that time.

“So we can certainly do that in our own center.” he said. “It’s a matter of coming up with the model and making sure that the patients are seen at the right time.”

Given the high frequency of VTE in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy, the usefulness of risk scores such as the Khorana risk score for identifying those at high risk, and the availability of safe and effective interventions for reducing risk, “we should probably use the data and incorporate them into clinical practice by implementation of programs for primary prevention,” he said.
 

A word of caution

Caution is warranted, however, when it comes to using DOACs in patients with higher-risk or potentially higher-risk tumor types, he added.

“It’s an important question we are facing as clinicians on a daily basis,” he said, responding to an attendee’s query, as shared by session moderator James Douketis, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., regarding possible bleeding risks in certain genitourinary cancers.

A recent meta-analysis published in Nature, for example, noted that, in the SELECT-D trial, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, most often in bladder and colorectal cancers, and most often at genitourinary and gastrointestinal sites.

Both Dr. Carrier and fellow panelist Michael Streiff, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and medical director at the Johns Hopkins Hospital Special Coagulation Laboratory, Baltimore, said they approach DOAC use cautiously, but don’t rule it out entirely, in patients with unresected genitourinary tumors that could pose a risk of bleeding.

“It’s worth mentioning and being cautious. In my own personal practice, I’m very careful with unresected urothelial-type tumors or, for example, bladder cancer, for the same reason as [with] unresected luminal GI tumors,” Dr. Carrier said, adding that he’s also mindful that patients with nephropathy were excluded from U.S. DOAC trials because of bleeding risk.

He said he sometimes tries a LMWH challenge first in higher-risk patients, and then might try a DOAC if no bleeding occurs.

“But it certainly is controversial,” he noted.

Dr. Streiff added that he also worries less with genitourinary cancers than with upper GI lesions because “the signals weren’t as big as in GI” cancers, but he noted that “the drugs are going out through the kidneys ... so I’m cautious in those populations.”

“So caution, but not complete exclusion, is the operative management,” Dr. Douketis said, summarizing the panelists’ consensus.

Dr. Carrier reported clinical trial or advisory board participation for Bayer, Pfizer, Servier, Leo Pharma, and/or BMS.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Primary thromboprophylaxis is feasible and worth considering for high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer who are initiating systemic chemotherapy, according to Marc Carrier, MD.

Risk scores can identify patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and treatments that are effective and associated with low bleeding risk are available, Dr. Carrier explained at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

However, caution is advised in patients with certain types of cancer, including some gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers, because of the possibility of increased major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding risk, he said.
 

VTE and cancer

VTE is relatively rare in the general population, occurring in about 1 or 2 per 1,000 people annually. The risk increases 4.1-fold in patients with cancer, and 6.5-fold in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

“So just putting these numbers together, we’re no longer talking about 1 in 1,000, but 1 in 200, so [this is] something that is very common among cancer patients,” said Dr. Carrier, a professor at the University of Ottawa and chief of the division of hematology at The Ottawa Hospital.

The mortality rate associated with cancer-associated thrombosis is about 9%, comparable to that associated with infection in the cancer outpatient setting, which underscores the importance of educating patients about the signs and symptoms of VTE so they can seek medical treatment quickly if necessary, he added.

It may also be useful to discuss prophylaxis or other ways to prevent venous thromboembolic complications with certain patients, he said, noting that in an observational cohort study of nearly 600 patients at the University of Ottawa, 25% of those initiating chemotherapy were identified as intermediate or high risk using the validated Khorana risk score, and thus would likely benefit from thromboprophylaxis.
 

Risk assessment

The Khorana risk score assesses VTE risk based on cancer site, blood counts, and body mass index. It is simple to use and has been validated in more than 20,000 people in multiple countries, Dr. Carrier said.

In a well-known validation study, Ay et al. showed a VTE complication rate of 10% in patients with a Khorana risk score of 2 or higher who were followed up to 6 months.

“This is huge,” Dr. Carrier stressed. “This is much higher than what we tolerate for all sorts of different populations for which we would recommend anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis.”

The question is whether the risk score can be helpful in a real-world clinic setting, he said, adding: “I’d like to think the answer to that is yes.”

In the University of Ottawa cohort study, 11% of high-risk patients experienced a VTE complication, compared with 4% of those with lower risk, suggesting that the validation data for the Khorana risk score is not only accurate, it is “actually applicable in real-world practice, and you can use it in your own center,” he said.

Further, recent studies have demonstrated that treatment based on Khorana risk score assessment reduces VTE complications.
 

Prophylaxis options

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been shown in several studies to be associated with a significant relative VTE risk reduction in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy – with only a slight, nonsignificant increase in the risk of major bleeding.

However, the absolute benefit was small, and LMWH is “parenteral, relatively costly, and, based on that, although we showed relatively good risk-benefit ratio, it never really got translated to clinical practice,” Dr. Carrier said.

In fact, a 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines update recommended against routine thromboprophylaxis in this setting, but stated that it could be considered in select high-risk patients identified using a validated risk-assessment tool.

The guidelines noted that “individual risk factors such as biomarkers and cancer site don’t reliably identify high-risk patients.”

More recent data provide additional support for risk assessment and treatment based on Khorana risk score of 2 or higher.

The AVERT trial, for which Dr. Carrier was the first author, showed that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) apixaban reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in patients with Khorana score of 2 or higher (4.2% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 overall, and 1.0 vs. 7.3; HR, 0.14 on treatment), and the CASSINI trial showed that another DOAC, rivaroxaban, reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in those with Khorana score of 2 or higher (5.9 vs. 6.7; HR, 0.6 overall, and 2.6 vs. 6.4; HR, 0.40 on treatment). The differences in the on-treatment populations were statistically significant.

The two trials, which included a variety of tumor types, showed similar rates of major bleeding, with an absolute difference of about 1% between treatment and placebo, which was not statistically significant in the on-treatment analyses (HR, 1.89 in AVERT and HR, 1.96 in CASSINI).

A systematic review of these trials showed an overall significant decrease in VTE complication risk with treatment in high-risk patients, and a nonstatistically significant major bleeding risk increase.

Based on these findings, ASCO guidelines were updated in 2020 to state that “routine thromboprophylaxis should not be offered to all patients with cancer. ... However, high-risk outpatients with cancer may be offered thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban or LMWH, providing there are no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug-drug interactions, and after having a full discussion with patients ... to make sure they understand the risk-benefit ratio and the rationale for that particular recommendation,” he said.
 

Real-world implementation

Implementing this approach in the clinic setting requires a practical model, such as the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTEPACC) program, a prospective quality improvement research initiative developed in collaboration with the Jeffords Institute for Quality at the University of Vermont Medical Center and described in a recent report, Dr. Carrier said.

The “Vermont model” is “really a comprehensive model that includes identifying patients with the electronic medical records, gathering the formal education and insight from other health care providers like pharmacists and nurses in order to really come up with personalized care for your patients,” he explained.

In 918 outpatients with cancer who were included in the program, VTE awareness increased from less than 5% before VTEPACC to nearly 82% during the implementation phase and 94.7% after 2 years, with nearly 94% of high-risk patients receiving VTE prophylaxis at that time.

“So we can certainly do that in our own center.” he said. “It’s a matter of coming up with the model and making sure that the patients are seen at the right time.”

Given the high frequency of VTE in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy, the usefulness of risk scores such as the Khorana risk score for identifying those at high risk, and the availability of safe and effective interventions for reducing risk, “we should probably use the data and incorporate them into clinical practice by implementation of programs for primary prevention,” he said.
 

A word of caution

Caution is warranted, however, when it comes to using DOACs in patients with higher-risk or potentially higher-risk tumor types, he added.

“It’s an important question we are facing as clinicians on a daily basis,” he said, responding to an attendee’s query, as shared by session moderator James Douketis, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., regarding possible bleeding risks in certain genitourinary cancers.

A recent meta-analysis published in Nature, for example, noted that, in the SELECT-D trial, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, most often in bladder and colorectal cancers, and most often at genitourinary and gastrointestinal sites.

Both Dr. Carrier and fellow panelist Michael Streiff, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and medical director at the Johns Hopkins Hospital Special Coagulation Laboratory, Baltimore, said they approach DOAC use cautiously, but don’t rule it out entirely, in patients with unresected genitourinary tumors that could pose a risk of bleeding.

“It’s worth mentioning and being cautious. In my own personal practice, I’m very careful with unresected urothelial-type tumors or, for example, bladder cancer, for the same reason as [with] unresected luminal GI tumors,” Dr. Carrier said, adding that he’s also mindful that patients with nephropathy were excluded from U.S. DOAC trials because of bleeding risk.

He said he sometimes tries a LMWH challenge first in higher-risk patients, and then might try a DOAC if no bleeding occurs.

“But it certainly is controversial,” he noted.

Dr. Streiff added that he also worries less with genitourinary cancers than with upper GI lesions because “the signals weren’t as big as in GI” cancers, but he noted that “the drugs are going out through the kidneys ... so I’m cautious in those populations.”

“So caution, but not complete exclusion, is the operative management,” Dr. Douketis said, summarizing the panelists’ consensus.

Dr. Carrier reported clinical trial or advisory board participation for Bayer, Pfizer, Servier, Leo Pharma, and/or BMS.

sworcester@mdedge.com

Primary thromboprophylaxis is feasible and worth considering for high-risk ambulatory patients with cancer who are initiating systemic chemotherapy, according to Marc Carrier, MD.

Risk scores can identify patients at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), and treatments that are effective and associated with low bleeding risk are available, Dr. Carrier explained at the biennial summit of the Thrombosis & Hemostasis Societies of North America.

However, caution is advised in patients with certain types of cancer, including some gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers, because of the possibility of increased major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding risk, he said.
 

VTE and cancer

VTE is relatively rare in the general population, occurring in about 1 or 2 per 1,000 people annually. The risk increases 4.1-fold in patients with cancer, and 6.5-fold in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy.

“So just putting these numbers together, we’re no longer talking about 1 in 1,000, but 1 in 200, so [this is] something that is very common among cancer patients,” said Dr. Carrier, a professor at the University of Ottawa and chief of the division of hematology at The Ottawa Hospital.

The mortality rate associated with cancer-associated thrombosis is about 9%, comparable to that associated with infection in the cancer outpatient setting, which underscores the importance of educating patients about the signs and symptoms of VTE so they can seek medical treatment quickly if necessary, he added.

It may also be useful to discuss prophylaxis or other ways to prevent venous thromboembolic complications with certain patients, he said, noting that in an observational cohort study of nearly 600 patients at the University of Ottawa, 25% of those initiating chemotherapy were identified as intermediate or high risk using the validated Khorana risk score, and thus would likely benefit from thromboprophylaxis.
 

Risk assessment

The Khorana risk score assesses VTE risk based on cancer site, blood counts, and body mass index. It is simple to use and has been validated in more than 20,000 people in multiple countries, Dr. Carrier said.

In a well-known validation study, Ay et al. showed a VTE complication rate of 10% in patients with a Khorana risk score of 2 or higher who were followed up to 6 months.

“This is huge,” Dr. Carrier stressed. “This is much higher than what we tolerate for all sorts of different populations for which we would recommend anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis.”

The question is whether the risk score can be helpful in a real-world clinic setting, he said, adding: “I’d like to think the answer to that is yes.”

In the University of Ottawa cohort study, 11% of high-risk patients experienced a VTE complication, compared with 4% of those with lower risk, suggesting that the validation data for the Khorana risk score is not only accurate, it is “actually applicable in real-world practice, and you can use it in your own center,” he said.

Further, recent studies have demonstrated that treatment based on Khorana risk score assessment reduces VTE complications.
 

Prophylaxis options

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) has been shown in several studies to be associated with a significant relative VTE risk reduction in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy – with only a slight, nonsignificant increase in the risk of major bleeding.

However, the absolute benefit was small, and LMWH is “parenteral, relatively costly, and, based on that, although we showed relatively good risk-benefit ratio, it never really got translated to clinical practice,” Dr. Carrier said.

In fact, a 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines update recommended against routine thromboprophylaxis in this setting, but stated that it could be considered in select high-risk patients identified using a validated risk-assessment tool.

The guidelines noted that “individual risk factors such as biomarkers and cancer site don’t reliably identify high-risk patients.”

More recent data provide additional support for risk assessment and treatment based on Khorana risk score of 2 or higher.

The AVERT trial, for which Dr. Carrier was the first author, showed that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant (DOAC) apixaban reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in patients with Khorana score of 2 or higher (4.2% vs. 10.2%; hazard ratio, 0.41 overall, and 1.0 vs. 7.3; HR, 0.14 on treatment), and the CASSINI trial showed that another DOAC, rivaroxaban, reduced VTE incidence, compared with placebo, in those with Khorana score of 2 or higher (5.9 vs. 6.7; HR, 0.6 overall, and 2.6 vs. 6.4; HR, 0.40 on treatment). The differences in the on-treatment populations were statistically significant.

The two trials, which included a variety of tumor types, showed similar rates of major bleeding, with an absolute difference of about 1% between treatment and placebo, which was not statistically significant in the on-treatment analyses (HR, 1.89 in AVERT and HR, 1.96 in CASSINI).

A systematic review of these trials showed an overall significant decrease in VTE complication risk with treatment in high-risk patients, and a nonstatistically significant major bleeding risk increase.

Based on these findings, ASCO guidelines were updated in 2020 to state that “routine thromboprophylaxis should not be offered to all patients with cancer. ... However, high-risk outpatients with cancer may be offered thromboprophylaxis with apixaban, rivaroxaban or LMWH, providing there are no significant risk factors for bleeding or drug-drug interactions, and after having a full discussion with patients ... to make sure they understand the risk-benefit ratio and the rationale for that particular recommendation,” he said.
 

Real-world implementation

Implementing this approach in the clinic setting requires a practical model, such as the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTEPACC) program, a prospective quality improvement research initiative developed in collaboration with the Jeffords Institute for Quality at the University of Vermont Medical Center and described in a recent report, Dr. Carrier said.

The “Vermont model” is “really a comprehensive model that includes identifying patients with the electronic medical records, gathering the formal education and insight from other health care providers like pharmacists and nurses in order to really come up with personalized care for your patients,” he explained.

In 918 outpatients with cancer who were included in the program, VTE awareness increased from less than 5% before VTEPACC to nearly 82% during the implementation phase and 94.7% after 2 years, with nearly 94% of high-risk patients receiving VTE prophylaxis at that time.

“So we can certainly do that in our own center.” he said. “It’s a matter of coming up with the model and making sure that the patients are seen at the right time.”

Given the high frequency of VTE in patients with cancer initiating chemotherapy, the usefulness of risk scores such as the Khorana risk score for identifying those at high risk, and the availability of safe and effective interventions for reducing risk, “we should probably use the data and incorporate them into clinical practice by implementation of programs for primary prevention,” he said.
 

A word of caution

Caution is warranted, however, when it comes to using DOACs in patients with higher-risk or potentially higher-risk tumor types, he added.

“It’s an important question we are facing as clinicians on a daily basis,” he said, responding to an attendee’s query, as shared by session moderator James Douketis, MD, professor of medicine at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., regarding possible bleeding risks in certain genitourinary cancers.

A recent meta-analysis published in Nature, for example, noted that, in the SELECT-D trial, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly higher incidence of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, most often in bladder and colorectal cancers, and most often at genitourinary and gastrointestinal sites.

Both Dr. Carrier and fellow panelist Michael Streiff, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and medical director at the Johns Hopkins Hospital Special Coagulation Laboratory, Baltimore, said they approach DOAC use cautiously, but don’t rule it out entirely, in patients with unresected genitourinary tumors that could pose a risk of bleeding.

“It’s worth mentioning and being cautious. In my own personal practice, I’m very careful with unresected urothelial-type tumors or, for example, bladder cancer, for the same reason as [with] unresected luminal GI tumors,” Dr. Carrier said, adding that he’s also mindful that patients with nephropathy were excluded from U.S. DOAC trials because of bleeding risk.

He said he sometimes tries a LMWH challenge first in higher-risk patients, and then might try a DOAC if no bleeding occurs.

“But it certainly is controversial,” he noted.

Dr. Streiff added that he also worries less with genitourinary cancers than with upper GI lesions because “the signals weren’t as big as in GI” cancers, but he noted that “the drugs are going out through the kidneys ... so I’m cautious in those populations.”

“So caution, but not complete exclusion, is the operative management,” Dr. Douketis said, summarizing the panelists’ consensus.

Dr. Carrier reported clinical trial or advisory board participation for Bayer, Pfizer, Servier, Leo Pharma, and/or BMS.

sworcester@mdedge.com

A quality improvement plan incorporating vaginal cleansing and azithromycin significantly reduced surgical-site infections (SSIs) after cesarean deliveries, reported Johanna Quist-Nelson, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

“Surgical site infections after a cesarean delivery are more common if the patient is in labor or has ruptured membranes,” she said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. 

Two options to decrease the risk of SSIs after cesarean for those patients in labor or with ruptured membranes are vaginal cleansing and azithromycin, given in addition to preoperative antibiotics, Dr. Quist-Nelson said. She and her colleagues conducted a quality improvement study of the effects of a stepwise implementation of vaginal cleansing and azithromycin to reduce SSIs at cesarean delivery in this high-risk population. The data were collected from 2016 to 2019 at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“We aimed to decrease our SSI rate by 30% by adopting an intervention of cleansing followed by azithromycin,” she said.

The researchers added vaginal cleansing to the SSI prevention protocol in January 2017, with the addition of azithromycin in March 2018. Vaginal cleansing involved 30 seconds of anterior to posterior cleaning prior to urinary catheter placement. Azithromycin was given at a dose of 500 mg intravenously in addition to preoperative antibiotics and within an hour of cesarean delivery.

A total of 1,033 deliveries qualified for the study by being in labor or with ruptured membranes; of these 291 were performed prior to the interventions, 335 received vaginal cleansing only, and 407 received vaginal cleansing and azithromycin. The average age of the participants was 30 years; approximately 42% were Black, and 32% were White.
 

Cleansing protocol reduces SSIs

Overall, the rate of SSIs was 22% in the standard care group, 17% in the vaginal cleansing group, and 15% in the vaginal cleansing plus azithromycin group. When broken down by infection type, no deep SSI occurred in the vaginal cleansing or cleansing plus azithromycin group, compared with 2% of the standard care group (P = .009). In addition, endometritis, which is an organ-space SSI, was significantly lower in the cleansing group (10%) and the cleansing plus azithromycin group (11%), compared with the standard care group (16%).

The study findings were limited by factors including the use of EMRs for collection of data, and given that it is a quality improvement study, there is a potential lack of generalizability to other institutions. The study focused on patients at high risk for SSI and the use of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) method of conducting the research, Dr. Quist-Nelson said. Compared with standard care, the implementation of vaginal cleansing reduced the SSI rate by 33%, with no significantly further change in SSI after the addition of azithromycin, she concluded.
 

Data sharing boosts compliance

In a question-and-answer session, Dr. Quist-Nelson noted that povidone iodine (Betadine) was chosen for vaginal cleansing because it was easily accessible at her institution, but that patients with allergies were given chlorhexidine. The cleansing itself was “primarily vaginal, not a full vulvar cleansing,” she clarified. The cleansing was performed immediately before catheter placement and included the urethra.

When asked about strategies to increase compliance, Dr. Quist-Nelson noted that sharing data was valuable, namely “reporting to our group the current compliance,” as well as sharing information by email and discussing it during multidisciplinary rounds.

The study was a quality improvement project and not a randomized trial, so the researchers were not able to tease out the impact of vaginal cleansing from the impact of azithromycin, Dr. Quist-Nelson said.

Based on her results, Dr. Quist-Nelson said she would recommend the protocol for use in patients who require cesarean delivery after being in labor or having ruptured membranes, and that “there are trials to support the use of both interventions.”

The results suggest opportunities for further randomized trials, including examination of the use of oral versus IV azithromycin, she added.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Quist-Nelson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A quality improvement plan incorporating vaginal cleansing and azithromycin significantly reduced surgical-site infections (SSIs) after cesarean deliveries, reported Johanna Quist-Nelson, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

“Surgical site infections after a cesarean delivery are more common if the patient is in labor or has ruptured membranes,” she said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. 

Two options to decrease the risk of SSIs after cesarean for those patients in labor or with ruptured membranes are vaginal cleansing and azithromycin, given in addition to preoperative antibiotics, Dr. Quist-Nelson said. She and her colleagues conducted a quality improvement study of the effects of a stepwise implementation of vaginal cleansing and azithromycin to reduce SSIs at cesarean delivery in this high-risk population. The data were collected from 2016 to 2019 at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“We aimed to decrease our SSI rate by 30% by adopting an intervention of cleansing followed by azithromycin,” she said.

The researchers added vaginal cleansing to the SSI prevention protocol in January 2017, with the addition of azithromycin in March 2018. Vaginal cleansing involved 30 seconds of anterior to posterior cleaning prior to urinary catheter placement. Azithromycin was given at a dose of 500 mg intravenously in addition to preoperative antibiotics and within an hour of cesarean delivery.

A total of 1,033 deliveries qualified for the study by being in labor or with ruptured membranes; of these 291 were performed prior to the interventions, 335 received vaginal cleansing only, and 407 received vaginal cleansing and azithromycin. The average age of the participants was 30 years; approximately 42% were Black, and 32% were White.
 

Cleansing protocol reduces SSIs

Overall, the rate of SSIs was 22% in the standard care group, 17% in the vaginal cleansing group, and 15% in the vaginal cleansing plus azithromycin group. When broken down by infection type, no deep SSI occurred in the vaginal cleansing or cleansing plus azithromycin group, compared with 2% of the standard care group (P = .009). In addition, endometritis, which is an organ-space SSI, was significantly lower in the cleansing group (10%) and the cleansing plus azithromycin group (11%), compared with the standard care group (16%).

The study findings were limited by factors including the use of EMRs for collection of data, and given that it is a quality improvement study, there is a potential lack of generalizability to other institutions. The study focused on patients at high risk for SSI and the use of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) method of conducting the research, Dr. Quist-Nelson said. Compared with standard care, the implementation of vaginal cleansing reduced the SSI rate by 33%, with no significantly further change in SSI after the addition of azithromycin, she concluded.
 

Data sharing boosts compliance

In a question-and-answer session, Dr. Quist-Nelson noted that povidone iodine (Betadine) was chosen for vaginal cleansing because it was easily accessible at her institution, but that patients with allergies were given chlorhexidine. The cleansing itself was “primarily vaginal, not a full vulvar cleansing,” she clarified. The cleansing was performed immediately before catheter placement and included the urethra.

When asked about strategies to increase compliance, Dr. Quist-Nelson noted that sharing data was valuable, namely “reporting to our group the current compliance,” as well as sharing information by email and discussing it during multidisciplinary rounds.

The study was a quality improvement project and not a randomized trial, so the researchers were not able to tease out the impact of vaginal cleansing from the impact of azithromycin, Dr. Quist-Nelson said.

Based on her results, Dr. Quist-Nelson said she would recommend the protocol for use in patients who require cesarean delivery after being in labor or having ruptured membranes, and that “there are trials to support the use of both interventions.”

The results suggest opportunities for further randomized trials, including examination of the use of oral versus IV azithromycin, she added.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Quist-Nelson had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A quality improvement plan incorporating vaginal cleansing and azithromycin significantly reduced surgical-site infections (SSIs) after cesarean deliveries, reported Johanna Quist-Nelson, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

“Surgical site infections after a cesarean delivery are more common if the patient is in labor or has ruptured membranes,” she said at the 2020 virtual meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.. 

Two options to decrease the risk of SSIs after cesarean for those patients in labor or with ruptured membranes are vaginal cleansing and azithromycin, given in addition to preoperative antibiotics, Dr. Quist-Nelson said. She and her colleagues conducted a quality improvement study of the effects of a stepwise implementation of vaginal cleansing and azithromycin to reduce SSIs at cesarean delivery in this high-risk population. The data were collected from 2016 to 2019 at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia.

“We aimed to decrease our SSI rate by 30% by adopting an intervention of cleansing followed by azithromycin,” she said.

The researchers added vaginal cleansing to the SSI prevention protocol in January 2017, with the addition of azithromycin in March 2018. Vaginal cleansing involved 30 seconds of anterior to posterior cleaning prior to urinary catheter placement. Azithromycin was given at a dose of 500 mg intravenously in addition to preoperative antibiotics and within an hour of cesarean delivery.

A total of 1,033 deliveries qualified for the study by being in labor or with ruptured membranes; of these 291 were performed prior to the interventions, 335 received vaginal cleansing only, and 407 received vaginal cleansing and azithromycin. The average age of the participants was 30 years; approximately 42% were Black, and 32% were White.
 

Cleansing protocol reduces SSIs

Overall, the rate of SSIs was 22% in the standard care group, 17% in the vaginal cleansing group, and 15% in the vaginal cleansing plus azithromycin group. When broken down by infection type, no deep SSI occurred in the vaginal cleansing or cleansing plus azithromycin group, compared with 2% of the standard care group (P = .009). In addition, endometritis, which is an organ-space SSI, was significantly lower in the cleansing group (10%) and the cleansing plus azithromycin group (11%), compared with the standard care group (16%).

The study findings were limited by factors including the use of EMRs for collection of data, and given that it is a quality improvement study, there is a potential lack of generalizability to other institutions. The study focused on patients at high risk for SSI and the use of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) method of conducting the research, Dr. Quist-Nelson said. Compared with standard care, the implementation of vaginal cleansing reduced the SSI rate by 33%, with no significantly further change in SSI after the addition of azithromycin, she concluded.
 

Data sharing boosts compliance

In a question-and-answer session, Dr. Quist-Nelson noted that povidone iodine (Betadine) was chosen for vaginal cleansing because it was easily accessible at her institution, but that patients with allergies were given chlorhexidine. The cleansing itself was “primarily vaginal, not a full vulvar cleansing,” she clarified. The cleansing was performed immediately before catheter placement and included the urethra.

When asked about strategies to increase compliance, Dr. Quist-Nelson noted that sharing data was valuable, namely “reporting to our group the current compliance,” as well as sharing information by email and discussing it during multidisciplinary rounds.

The study was a quality improvement project and not a randomized trial, so the researchers were not able to tease out the impact of vaginal cleansing from the impact of azithromycin, Dr. Quist-Nelson said.

Based on her results, Dr. Quist-Nelson said she would recommend the protocol for use in patients who require cesarean delivery after being in labor or having ruptured membranes, and that “there are trials to support the use of both interventions.”

The results suggest opportunities for further randomized trials, including examination of the use of oral versus IV azithromycin, she added.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Quist-Nelson had no financial conflicts to disclose.