ALL

More than a million European children undergo a CT scan each year. Ionizing radiation at moderate (> 100 mGy) to high (> 1 Gy) doses is a recognized risk factor for malignant hematopathies. The risk associated with exposure to low doses (< 100 mGy), typically delivered during a CT scan in children or adolescents, is unknown.

Previous studies assessed the risk for malignant hematopathies related to ionizing radiation from CT scans in young patients. Some showed an increased risk for leukemia with repeated scans, but confounding factors resulted in a lack of statistical power or biases in some cases. The EPI-CT study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to evaluate the cancer risk among children and adolescents after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation during CT scans.
 

A European Cohort

A recent article presents an assessment of observed malignant hematopathies following CT scan. The authors followed a multinational European cohort of 948,174 patients who had a CT scan before age 22 years. Ionizing radiation doses to the bone marrow were evaluated based on the scanned body region, patient characteristics, scan year, and the technical parameters of the machine. The analysis involved 876,771 patients who underwent 1,331,896 scans (an average of 1.52 per patient) and were followed for at least 2 years after the first scan.

In total, 790 malignant hematopathies were diagnosed, including 578 lymphoid hematopathies and 203 myeloid hematopathies and acute leukemias. The average follow-up period was 7.8 years. At the time of diagnosis, 51% of patients were under the age of 20 years, and 88.5% were under the age of 30 years. There was an association between cumulative dose and the observed malignant hematopathy, with an observed rate of 1.96 per 100 mGy (790 cases).

This rate corresponds to a 16% increased rate per scan (for a dose observed per scan of 8 mGy). A higher rate for any type of malignant hematopathy was observed for doses > 10 mGy, with an observed rate of 2.66 for doses > 50 mGy, compared with doses < 5 mGy.

The rate of malignant hematopathy increased with older age at the time of radiation exposure, particularly for lymphoid observations. The rate in the 5- to 9-year age group and the > 10-year age group was, respectively, two times and three to four times higher than that in the < 5-year age group. The rate decreased over time, with the highest observed rate between 2 and 5 years after ionizing radiation exposure and the lowest after 10 years.
 

CT Scans Must Be Warranted

This study, which involved nearly a million patients, has higher statistical power than previous studies, despite missing or approximate data (including that related to actually delivered doses). An association was shown between cumulative dose to the bone marrow and the risk of developing malignant hematopathy, both lymphoid and myeloid, with an increased risk even at low doses (10-15 mGy).

The results suggest that for every 10,000 children examined today (with a dose per scan of 8 mGy), 1-2 could develop a radiation-related malignant hematopathy in the next 12 years (1.4 cases). This study confirms the higher risk for cancer at low radiation doses and emphasizes the importance of justifying each pediatric CT scan and optimizing delivered doses. It is important to recall that an MRI or ultrasound can sometimes be an adequate substitute for a CT scan.

This article was translated from   JIM , which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

More than a million European children undergo a CT scan each year. Ionizing radiation at moderate (> 100 mGy) to high (> 1 Gy) doses is a recognized risk factor for malignant hematopathies. The risk associated with exposure to low doses (< 100 mGy), typically delivered during a CT scan in children or adolescents, is unknown.

Previous studies assessed the risk for malignant hematopathies related to ionizing radiation from CT scans in young patients. Some showed an increased risk for leukemia with repeated scans, but confounding factors resulted in a lack of statistical power or biases in some cases. The EPI-CT study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to evaluate the cancer risk among children and adolescents after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation during CT scans.
 

A European Cohort

A recent article presents an assessment of observed malignant hematopathies following CT scan. The authors followed a multinational European cohort of 948,174 patients who had a CT scan before age 22 years. Ionizing radiation doses to the bone marrow were evaluated based on the scanned body region, patient characteristics, scan year, and the technical parameters of the machine. The analysis involved 876,771 patients who underwent 1,331,896 scans (an average of 1.52 per patient) and were followed for at least 2 years after the first scan.

In total, 790 malignant hematopathies were diagnosed, including 578 lymphoid hematopathies and 203 myeloid hematopathies and acute leukemias. The average follow-up period was 7.8 years. At the time of diagnosis, 51% of patients were under the age of 20 years, and 88.5% were under the age of 30 years. There was an association between cumulative dose and the observed malignant hematopathy, with an observed rate of 1.96 per 100 mGy (790 cases).

This rate corresponds to a 16% increased rate per scan (for a dose observed per scan of 8 mGy). A higher rate for any type of malignant hematopathy was observed for doses > 10 mGy, with an observed rate of 2.66 for doses > 50 mGy, compared with doses < 5 mGy.

The rate of malignant hematopathy increased with older age at the time of radiation exposure, particularly for lymphoid observations. The rate in the 5- to 9-year age group and the > 10-year age group was, respectively, two times and three to four times higher than that in the < 5-year age group. The rate decreased over time, with the highest observed rate between 2 and 5 years after ionizing radiation exposure and the lowest after 10 years.
 

CT Scans Must Be Warranted

This study, which involved nearly a million patients, has higher statistical power than previous studies, despite missing or approximate data (including that related to actually delivered doses). An association was shown between cumulative dose to the bone marrow and the risk of developing malignant hematopathy, both lymphoid and myeloid, with an increased risk even at low doses (10-15 mGy).

The results suggest that for every 10,000 children examined today (with a dose per scan of 8 mGy), 1-2 could develop a radiation-related malignant hematopathy in the next 12 years (1.4 cases). This study confirms the higher risk for cancer at low radiation doses and emphasizes the importance of justifying each pediatric CT scan and optimizing delivered doses. It is important to recall that an MRI or ultrasound can sometimes be an adequate substitute for a CT scan.

This article was translated from   JIM , which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

More than a million European children undergo a CT scan each year. Ionizing radiation at moderate (> 100 mGy) to high (> 1 Gy) doses is a recognized risk factor for malignant hematopathies. The risk associated with exposure to low doses (< 100 mGy), typically delivered during a CT scan in children or adolescents, is unknown.

Previous studies assessed the risk for malignant hematopathies related to ionizing radiation from CT scans in young patients. Some showed an increased risk for leukemia with repeated scans, but confounding factors resulted in a lack of statistical power or biases in some cases. The EPI-CT study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to evaluate the cancer risk among children and adolescents after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation during CT scans.
 

A European Cohort

A recent article presents an assessment of observed malignant hematopathies following CT scan. The authors followed a multinational European cohort of 948,174 patients who had a CT scan before age 22 years. Ionizing radiation doses to the bone marrow were evaluated based on the scanned body region, patient characteristics, scan year, and the technical parameters of the machine. The analysis involved 876,771 patients who underwent 1,331,896 scans (an average of 1.52 per patient) and were followed for at least 2 years after the first scan.

In total, 790 malignant hematopathies were diagnosed, including 578 lymphoid hematopathies and 203 myeloid hematopathies and acute leukemias. The average follow-up period was 7.8 years. At the time of diagnosis, 51% of patients were under the age of 20 years, and 88.5% were under the age of 30 years. There was an association between cumulative dose and the observed malignant hematopathy, with an observed rate of 1.96 per 100 mGy (790 cases).

This rate corresponds to a 16% increased rate per scan (for a dose observed per scan of 8 mGy). A higher rate for any type of malignant hematopathy was observed for doses > 10 mGy, with an observed rate of 2.66 for doses > 50 mGy, compared with doses < 5 mGy.

The rate of malignant hematopathy increased with older age at the time of radiation exposure, particularly for lymphoid observations. The rate in the 5- to 9-year age group and the > 10-year age group was, respectively, two times and three to four times higher than that in the < 5-year age group. The rate decreased over time, with the highest observed rate between 2 and 5 years after ionizing radiation exposure and the lowest after 10 years.
 

CT Scans Must Be Warranted

This study, which involved nearly a million patients, has higher statistical power than previous studies, despite missing or approximate data (including that related to actually delivered doses). An association was shown between cumulative dose to the bone marrow and the risk of developing malignant hematopathy, both lymphoid and myeloid, with an increased risk even at low doses (10-15 mGy).

The results suggest that for every 10,000 children examined today (with a dose per scan of 8 mGy), 1-2 could develop a radiation-related malignant hematopathy in the next 12 years (1.4 cases). This study confirms the higher risk for cancer at low radiation doses and emphasizes the importance of justifying each pediatric CT scan and optimizing delivered doses. It is important to recall that an MRI or ultrasound can sometimes be an adequate substitute for a CT scan.

This article was translated from   JIM , which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Once the standard treatment for adult patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), stem cell transplants have fallen out of favor somewhat in recent years, with immunotherapy and pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimens moving to the forefront. But hematologists differ on how to treat relapsed/refractory patients with Philadelphia-chromosome negative (Ph-negative) ALL who are minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) are still part of the hematology armamentarium for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with Ph-negative ALL who are MRD positive. However, when asked about the best treatment strategy for patients who are MRD-negative, hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview, “There is no firm consensus about that.”

Discussing how medicine has evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, Dr. Litzow recalled that HSCT used to be standard treatment for adult patients with ALL. “We felt that in most instances, chemotherapy alone was not going to be effective in curing them. A vast majority would relapse,” he said. Nowadays, however, specialists differ on the use of HSCT in patients with Ph-negative, MRD-negative ALL.

A pair of commentaries in the January issue of The Lancet Hematology tackle this topic from different perspectives. On one hand, hematologist Patrice Chevallier, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, argues that for such patients, HSCT “remains a valid option,”and MRD status shouldn’t be the sole factor used for a decision.

However, hematologist Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Paris Cité University, contends that detectable early MRD is the “only robust predictor” of HSCT benefit in patients under 60 with Ph-negative ALL, and it has “unproven” benefit in older patients.

As Dr. Chevallier notes, “allogeneic HSCT is indicated in patients defined as having a high risk of relapse. Currently, a high level of residual leukemic cells after treatment is recognized as the strongest, and sometimes sole, criterion defining high-risk patients.”

As first- and second-line therapy in pediatric patients and as first-line therapy in adults, the “rule” is to offer HSCT to MRD-positive patients but not MRD-negative ones, he writes. “In older patients and those who are relapsed or refractory, the recent demonstration of efficient immunotherapies and cell therapies has launched the debate on the role of MRD status and the question of whether or not to transplant patients who are MRD-negative in both settings.”

Dr. Chevallier notes that “there is no standard definition of an MRD-negative status,” and the best timing for evaluation is unknown. Further, he adds, a “variable proportion of MRD-negative patients still relapse after treatment — up to 25% of patients who respond early and more than 50% of patients who respond late.”

He also points out that there’s an 80% chance that patients will convert from MRD negative to MRD positive after blinatumomab therapy, and he highlights the low long-term survival rate (20%) after brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), a CAR T-cell therapy.

As for older patients, Dr. Chevallier observes that improved chemo-immunotherapy and conditioning regimens could spark a rethinking of the feasibility of HSCT. However, for now, in those patients, “MRD is not decisional, and allogeneic HSCT is not a routine practice,” he writes.

In his commentary, Dr. Boissel points out that there have been no controlled studies of HSCT in the first-remission setting, although he writes that some data suggests that HSCT may be helpful for patients in high-risk genetic subgroups, regardless of MRD status. On the other hand, “converging observations suggest no benefit of HSCT in MRD-positive patients treated with blinatumomab in the front-line setting.”

If MRD monitoring is unavailable, Dr. Boissel adds, “it seems reasonable to use early blast clearance or other baseline high-risk features to indicate HSCT.”

How can hematologists make the best decision about HSCT?

In an interview, City of Hope Medical Center (Duarte, California) hematologist-oncologist Ibrahim T. Aldoss, MD, said that chemotherapy — with or without immunotherapy — can often be enough to treat younger patients without high-risk genetic factors. “Potentially, these patients can be spared from transplants,” he said, although patients with resistant MRD “clearly need transplants.”

The risks of transplants are significant, he noted. While they can reduce the risk of relapse, the risk of dying during remission is higher vs chemotherapy. “So you have to balance the risks that you’re willing to take,” he said, keeping in mind that some patients can be cured with chemotherapy.

In addition, Dr. Aldoss said, acute graft-versus-host disease in the first few months after transplant can become chronic. “Many years later, patients can be struggling to where it actually impacts their daily activity. And unfortunately, patients can die from it.”

In the big picture, “you cannot have a generalized statement about whether you shouldn’t do transplants in every MRD-negative patient,” he said. However, “if you do achieve MRD negativity, most patients likely don’t need transplants.”

The Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Litzow urged colleagues to consider several factors when making decisions. Do patients have a high level of comorbidities that would raise the risk of death from HSCT? He noted that there’s nearly a 20% risk of death from HSCT, and comorbidities can boost the risk to 40%-50%.

Also, does the patient have a suitable donor? While advances have boosted the number of eligible donors, he said, “not everybody has an ideal donor.”

If a patient is MRD-negative but not a good candidate for a transplant, Dr. Litzow said consolidation therapy followed by maintenance therapy may be indicated. “Continue to check their bone marrow and their blood periodically as they’re going through treatment and reassess their MRD status to make sure they’re staying negative. If they turn MRD-positive during the course of their therapy, then we have to step back and rethink the role of transplant.”

As for cost, Dr. Litzow points out that HSCT is very expensive, although ALL is an accepted indication for HSCT. However, “if someone doesn’t have medical insurance, then it can be difficult to consider them having a transplant.”

What’s next? In his commentary, Dr. Boissel writes that his team aims to study whether HSCT is helpful in patients with high-risk B-cell ALL “who reach MRD negativity after a consolidation phase including blinatumomab.”

Dr. Aldoss discloses relationships with Amgen, Kite, Pfizer, Jazz, AbbVie, Sobi, Agios, Autolus, and MacroGenics. Dr. Litzow reports ties with Amgen. Dr. Boissel declares relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Chevallier has no disclosures.

Once the standard treatment for adult patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), stem cell transplants have fallen out of favor somewhat in recent years, with immunotherapy and pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimens moving to the forefront. But hematologists differ on how to treat relapsed/refractory patients with Philadelphia-chromosome negative (Ph-negative) ALL who are minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) are still part of the hematology armamentarium for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with Ph-negative ALL who are MRD positive. However, when asked about the best treatment strategy for patients who are MRD-negative, hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview, “There is no firm consensus about that.”

Discussing how medicine has evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, Dr. Litzow recalled that HSCT used to be standard treatment for adult patients with ALL. “We felt that in most instances, chemotherapy alone was not going to be effective in curing them. A vast majority would relapse,” he said. Nowadays, however, specialists differ on the use of HSCT in patients with Ph-negative, MRD-negative ALL.

A pair of commentaries in the January issue of The Lancet Hematology tackle this topic from different perspectives. On one hand, hematologist Patrice Chevallier, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, argues that for such patients, HSCT “remains a valid option,”and MRD status shouldn’t be the sole factor used for a decision.

However, hematologist Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Paris Cité University, contends that detectable early MRD is the “only robust predictor” of HSCT benefit in patients under 60 with Ph-negative ALL, and it has “unproven” benefit in older patients.

As Dr. Chevallier notes, “allogeneic HSCT is indicated in patients defined as having a high risk of relapse. Currently, a high level of residual leukemic cells after treatment is recognized as the strongest, and sometimes sole, criterion defining high-risk patients.”

As first- and second-line therapy in pediatric patients and as first-line therapy in adults, the “rule” is to offer HSCT to MRD-positive patients but not MRD-negative ones, he writes. “In older patients and those who are relapsed or refractory, the recent demonstration of efficient immunotherapies and cell therapies has launched the debate on the role of MRD status and the question of whether or not to transplant patients who are MRD-negative in both settings.”

Dr. Chevallier notes that “there is no standard definition of an MRD-negative status,” and the best timing for evaluation is unknown. Further, he adds, a “variable proportion of MRD-negative patients still relapse after treatment — up to 25% of patients who respond early and more than 50% of patients who respond late.”

He also points out that there’s an 80% chance that patients will convert from MRD negative to MRD positive after blinatumomab therapy, and he highlights the low long-term survival rate (20%) after brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), a CAR T-cell therapy.

As for older patients, Dr. Chevallier observes that improved chemo-immunotherapy and conditioning regimens could spark a rethinking of the feasibility of HSCT. However, for now, in those patients, “MRD is not decisional, and allogeneic HSCT is not a routine practice,” he writes.

In his commentary, Dr. Boissel points out that there have been no controlled studies of HSCT in the first-remission setting, although he writes that some data suggests that HSCT may be helpful for patients in high-risk genetic subgroups, regardless of MRD status. On the other hand, “converging observations suggest no benefit of HSCT in MRD-positive patients treated with blinatumomab in the front-line setting.”

If MRD monitoring is unavailable, Dr. Boissel adds, “it seems reasonable to use early blast clearance or other baseline high-risk features to indicate HSCT.”

How can hematologists make the best decision about HSCT?

In an interview, City of Hope Medical Center (Duarte, California) hematologist-oncologist Ibrahim T. Aldoss, MD, said that chemotherapy — with or without immunotherapy — can often be enough to treat younger patients without high-risk genetic factors. “Potentially, these patients can be spared from transplants,” he said, although patients with resistant MRD “clearly need transplants.”

The risks of transplants are significant, he noted. While they can reduce the risk of relapse, the risk of dying during remission is higher vs chemotherapy. “So you have to balance the risks that you’re willing to take,” he said, keeping in mind that some patients can be cured with chemotherapy.

In addition, Dr. Aldoss said, acute graft-versus-host disease in the first few months after transplant can become chronic. “Many years later, patients can be struggling to where it actually impacts their daily activity. And unfortunately, patients can die from it.”

In the big picture, “you cannot have a generalized statement about whether you shouldn’t do transplants in every MRD-negative patient,” he said. However, “if you do achieve MRD negativity, most patients likely don’t need transplants.”

The Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Litzow urged colleagues to consider several factors when making decisions. Do patients have a high level of comorbidities that would raise the risk of death from HSCT? He noted that there’s nearly a 20% risk of death from HSCT, and comorbidities can boost the risk to 40%-50%.

Also, does the patient have a suitable donor? While advances have boosted the number of eligible donors, he said, “not everybody has an ideal donor.”

If a patient is MRD-negative but not a good candidate for a transplant, Dr. Litzow said consolidation therapy followed by maintenance therapy may be indicated. “Continue to check their bone marrow and their blood periodically as they’re going through treatment and reassess their MRD status to make sure they’re staying negative. If they turn MRD-positive during the course of their therapy, then we have to step back and rethink the role of transplant.”

As for cost, Dr. Litzow points out that HSCT is very expensive, although ALL is an accepted indication for HSCT. However, “if someone doesn’t have medical insurance, then it can be difficult to consider them having a transplant.”

What’s next? In his commentary, Dr. Boissel writes that his team aims to study whether HSCT is helpful in patients with high-risk B-cell ALL “who reach MRD negativity after a consolidation phase including blinatumomab.”

Dr. Aldoss discloses relationships with Amgen, Kite, Pfizer, Jazz, AbbVie, Sobi, Agios, Autolus, and MacroGenics. Dr. Litzow reports ties with Amgen. Dr. Boissel declares relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Chevallier has no disclosures.

Once the standard treatment for adult patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), stem cell transplants have fallen out of favor somewhat in recent years, with immunotherapy and pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimens moving to the forefront. But hematologists differ on how to treat relapsed/refractory patients with Philadelphia-chromosome negative (Ph-negative) ALL who are minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) are still part of the hematology armamentarium for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with Ph-negative ALL who are MRD positive. However, when asked about the best treatment strategy for patients who are MRD-negative, hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview, “There is no firm consensus about that.”

Discussing how medicine has evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, Dr. Litzow recalled that HSCT used to be standard treatment for adult patients with ALL. “We felt that in most instances, chemotherapy alone was not going to be effective in curing them. A vast majority would relapse,” he said. Nowadays, however, specialists differ on the use of HSCT in patients with Ph-negative, MRD-negative ALL.

A pair of commentaries in the January issue of The Lancet Hematology tackle this topic from different perspectives. On one hand, hematologist Patrice Chevallier, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, argues that for such patients, HSCT “remains a valid option,”and MRD status shouldn’t be the sole factor used for a decision.

However, hematologist Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Paris Cité University, contends that detectable early MRD is the “only robust predictor” of HSCT benefit in patients under 60 with Ph-negative ALL, and it has “unproven” benefit in older patients.

As Dr. Chevallier notes, “allogeneic HSCT is indicated in patients defined as having a high risk of relapse. Currently, a high level of residual leukemic cells after treatment is recognized as the strongest, and sometimes sole, criterion defining high-risk patients.”

As first- and second-line therapy in pediatric patients and as first-line therapy in adults, the “rule” is to offer HSCT to MRD-positive patients but not MRD-negative ones, he writes. “In older patients and those who are relapsed or refractory, the recent demonstration of efficient immunotherapies and cell therapies has launched the debate on the role of MRD status and the question of whether or not to transplant patients who are MRD-negative in both settings.”

Dr. Chevallier notes that “there is no standard definition of an MRD-negative status,” and the best timing for evaluation is unknown. Further, he adds, a “variable proportion of MRD-negative patients still relapse after treatment — up to 25% of patients who respond early and more than 50% of patients who respond late.”

He also points out that there’s an 80% chance that patients will convert from MRD negative to MRD positive after blinatumomab therapy, and he highlights the low long-term survival rate (20%) after brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), a CAR T-cell therapy.

As for older patients, Dr. Chevallier observes that improved chemo-immunotherapy and conditioning regimens could spark a rethinking of the feasibility of HSCT. However, for now, in those patients, “MRD is not decisional, and allogeneic HSCT is not a routine practice,” he writes.

In his commentary, Dr. Boissel points out that there have been no controlled studies of HSCT in the first-remission setting, although he writes that some data suggests that HSCT may be helpful for patients in high-risk genetic subgroups, regardless of MRD status. On the other hand, “converging observations suggest no benefit of HSCT in MRD-positive patients treated with blinatumomab in the front-line setting.”

If MRD monitoring is unavailable, Dr. Boissel adds, “it seems reasonable to use early blast clearance or other baseline high-risk features to indicate HSCT.”

How can hematologists make the best decision about HSCT?

In an interview, City of Hope Medical Center (Duarte, California) hematologist-oncologist Ibrahim T. Aldoss, MD, said that chemotherapy — with or without immunotherapy — can often be enough to treat younger patients without high-risk genetic factors. “Potentially, these patients can be spared from transplants,” he said, although patients with resistant MRD “clearly need transplants.”

The risks of transplants are significant, he noted. While they can reduce the risk of relapse, the risk of dying during remission is higher vs chemotherapy. “So you have to balance the risks that you’re willing to take,” he said, keeping in mind that some patients can be cured with chemotherapy.

In addition, Dr. Aldoss said, acute graft-versus-host disease in the first few months after transplant can become chronic. “Many years later, patients can be struggling to where it actually impacts their daily activity. And unfortunately, patients can die from it.”

In the big picture, “you cannot have a generalized statement about whether you shouldn’t do transplants in every MRD-negative patient,” he said. However, “if you do achieve MRD negativity, most patients likely don’t need transplants.”

The Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Litzow urged colleagues to consider several factors when making decisions. Do patients have a high level of comorbidities that would raise the risk of death from HSCT? He noted that there’s nearly a 20% risk of death from HSCT, and comorbidities can boost the risk to 40%-50%.

Also, does the patient have a suitable donor? While advances have boosted the number of eligible donors, he said, “not everybody has an ideal donor.”

If a patient is MRD-negative but not a good candidate for a transplant, Dr. Litzow said consolidation therapy followed by maintenance therapy may be indicated. “Continue to check their bone marrow and their blood periodically as they’re going through treatment and reassess their MRD status to make sure they’re staying negative. If they turn MRD-positive during the course of their therapy, then we have to step back and rethink the role of transplant.”

As for cost, Dr. Litzow points out that HSCT is very expensive, although ALL is an accepted indication for HSCT. However, “if someone doesn’t have medical insurance, then it can be difficult to consider them having a transplant.”

What’s next? In his commentary, Dr. Boissel writes that his team aims to study whether HSCT is helpful in patients with high-risk B-cell ALL “who reach MRD negativity after a consolidation phase including blinatumomab.”

Dr. Aldoss discloses relationships with Amgen, Kite, Pfizer, Jazz, AbbVie, Sobi, Agios, Autolus, and MacroGenics. Dr. Litzow reports ties with Amgen. Dr. Boissel declares relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Chevallier has no disclosures.

In treating young patients with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL), prophylactic central nervous system (CNS)-directed cranial radiotherapy (CRT) can safely be omitted even for those with the greatest CNS involvement,i.e., CNS-3 disease. Doing so spares patients the treatment’s toxic effects without heightening the risk of relapse.

“Overall, comparison of these cohorts provides a strong indication that CRT provides minimal benefit to patients with CNS-3 disease at diagnosis,” first author Ajay Vora, MD, a consultant hematologist with Great Ormond Street Hospital, in London, and his colleagues report in a research letter published recently in Blood Advances.

“Given the high rates of neurocognitive impairment and secondary CNS malignancies, we believe strong consideration should be given to eliminating CRT in first-line treatment for all patients with T-ALL,” they wrote.

More aggressive than B-cell ALL, T-ALL is characterized by a higher likelihood of infiltration of the CNS at diagnosis, which increases the risk of relapse after treatment.

Until recently, treatment of T-ALL long entailed CNS-directed therapy using prophylactic CRT. Now, however, due to the risks of significant toxicity, including neurocognitive defects and secondary cancers, CRT is usually either omitted or limited to key subgroups, such as those with CNS-3 disease. As an alternative, intrathecal chemotherapy is used, the authors explain.

In a 2023 study evaluating the consecutive Children’s Oncology Group (COG) AALL0434 and AALL1231 phase 3 trials of 2,164 patients with T-ALL, patients with CNS-3 at diagnosis were found to have worse outcomes, compared with CNS-1 and 2.

Importantly, the outcomes in both of those two trials were similar, despite the use of CRT in more than 90% of patients in the AALL0434 trial--but in only 10% of patients AALL1231 trial (mainly those with CNS-3 and at high-risk). These outcomes suggested that CRT can safely be eliminated for CNS-1 and 2 patients.

With CRT used in both trials among patients with CNS-3, conclusions about eliminating CRT among those patients could not be drawn. However, with other large groups (including the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group), eliminating CRT in the frontline treatment of all patients with T-ALL, including those with CNS-3, is what Dr. Vora and colleagues sought to further investigate.

For the current study, they evaluated outcomes in the UKALL2003 and UKALL2011 trials conducted by the UK National Cancer Research Institute, in which CRT was eliminated for all patients — including those with CNS-3 — and compared them with the COG AALL0434 and AALL1231 trials.

In the UK trials, involving 665 patients with T-ALL aged 1 to 24, treatment included a dexamethasone-based backbone chemotherapy consisting of a 4-drug induction, Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM) consolidation, interim maintenance, delayed intensification, and maintenance therapy, with the treatment stratified based on morphological early response and minimal residual disease at the end of induction.

While the UKALL2003 trial initially recommended CRT for patients with CNS-3, that practice ended in 2009, and CNS-directed therapy subsequently consisted of intrathecal methotrexate (MTX) at regular intervals throughout treatment. Additional weekly intrathecal MTX treatments were recommended throughout induction for patients with CNS-3.

In the UKALL2011 trial, the weekly intrathecal MTX treatments were recommended for patients with CNS-2, as well as CNS-3.

Overall, among those with CNS data available, 557 patients had CNS-1 (87.4%), 44 CNS-2 (6.9%), and 36 CNS-3 (5.7%).

For the outcomes of 4-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in the combined cohort of the 2 UK trials, there were no significant differences between CNS-1, 2 or 3 groups.

Specifically, the mean rates of 4-year CIR in the CNS-1, 2, and 3 groups were 13.6%, 25.9% and 24.6%, respectively (P = .241); mean EFS rates were 82.9%, 74.1% and 77.8% (P = .623), and OS rates were 88.6%, 80.9% and 91.8%, (P = .453).

“Most importantly, outcomes are not significantly different for the patients with CNS-3, despite omission of CRT in the UK cohort,” the authors underscored.

Comparatively, in the cohort of the 2 COG trials, there were significant differences based on CNS status for 4-year CIR (P = .0002); EFS (P = .0004) and OS (P = .005).

The 4-year relapse rates among those with CNS-3 in the UK cohort were slightly higher compared with those in the COG cohort (24.6% UK vs 17.9%, COG). However, the difference did not translate to poorer long-term survival in the UK cohort (91.8% vs 82.7%, respectively).

Those findings are consistent with a previous meta-analysis that Dr. Vora and his colleagues conducted of more than 16,000 patients with mainly B-cell ALL, which showed that CRT reduced the risk of isolated and combined CNS relapse in patients with CNS-3. However, that risk had no impact on EFS and OS.

Of note, patients in the UK cohort with CNS-2 had worse outcomes compared with the COG group, with double the rate of relapse and lower EFS and OS. However, the authors speculate that factors including a lower proportion of patients with CNS-2 in the UK cohort and differences in methodologies may explain those different outcomes and may preclude their generalizability to other groups.

Overall, “these findings corroborate those of earlier studies that CRT has marginal, if any benefit, for any sub-group of ALL, especially as part of contemporary treatment,” Dr. Vora said in an interview.

In terms of therapies that do appear to make a difference in the treatment of CNS-3, Dr. Vora noted that the addition of nelarabine in the COG AALL0434 trial showed “remarkable benefit” in the CNS-3 group, with a 93.1% rate of disease-free survival in those patients versus 70.2% without nelarabine.

Importantly, those patients did also receive CRT. However, Dr. Vora and colleagues underscore that “the improvement is impressive and raises the question of whether nelarabine would have a similar beneficial effect in the absence of CRT.”

In an editorial published with the COG trials, Josep-Maria Ribera, MD, of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute, in Barcelona, Spain, agrees that “better approaches clearly are needed to treat CNS-3 T-ALL, especially if omission of CRT is a priority.”

Noting the improvements observed with nelarabine, as well as Capizzi escalating-dose methotrexate (C-MTX), and dexamethasone in reducing the risk of CNS relapse, he speculates that “it is possible that the additional use of C-MTX and induction dexamethasone could eliminate the need for CRT in these patients.”

The authors and Dr. Ribera had no disclosures to report.

In treating young patients with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL), prophylactic central nervous system (CNS)-directed cranial radiotherapy (CRT) can safely be omitted even for those with the greatest CNS involvement,i.e., CNS-3 disease. Doing so spares patients the treatment’s toxic effects without heightening the risk of relapse.

“Overall, comparison of these cohorts provides a strong indication that CRT provides minimal benefit to patients with CNS-3 disease at diagnosis,” first author Ajay Vora, MD, a consultant hematologist with Great Ormond Street Hospital, in London, and his colleagues report in a research letter published recently in Blood Advances.

“Given the high rates of neurocognitive impairment and secondary CNS malignancies, we believe strong consideration should be given to eliminating CRT in first-line treatment for all patients with T-ALL,” they wrote.

More aggressive than B-cell ALL, T-ALL is characterized by a higher likelihood of infiltration of the CNS at diagnosis, which increases the risk of relapse after treatment.

Until recently, treatment of T-ALL long entailed CNS-directed therapy using prophylactic CRT. Now, however, due to the risks of significant toxicity, including neurocognitive defects and secondary cancers, CRT is usually either omitted or limited to key subgroups, such as those with CNS-3 disease. As an alternative, intrathecal chemotherapy is used, the authors explain.

In a 2023 study evaluating the consecutive Children’s Oncology Group (COG) AALL0434 and AALL1231 phase 3 trials of 2,164 patients with T-ALL, patients with CNS-3 at diagnosis were found to have worse outcomes, compared with CNS-1 and 2.

Importantly, the outcomes in both of those two trials were similar, despite the use of CRT in more than 90% of patients in the AALL0434 trial--but in only 10% of patients AALL1231 trial (mainly those with CNS-3 and at high-risk). These outcomes suggested that CRT can safely be eliminated for CNS-1 and 2 patients.

With CRT used in both trials among patients with CNS-3, conclusions about eliminating CRT among those patients could not be drawn. However, with other large groups (including the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group), eliminating CRT in the frontline treatment of all patients with T-ALL, including those with CNS-3, is what Dr. Vora and colleagues sought to further investigate.

For the current study, they evaluated outcomes in the UKALL2003 and UKALL2011 trials conducted by the UK National Cancer Research Institute, in which CRT was eliminated for all patients — including those with CNS-3 — and compared them with the COG AALL0434 and AALL1231 trials.

In the UK trials, involving 665 patients with T-ALL aged 1 to 24, treatment included a dexamethasone-based backbone chemotherapy consisting of a 4-drug induction, Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM) consolidation, interim maintenance, delayed intensification, and maintenance therapy, with the treatment stratified based on morphological early response and minimal residual disease at the end of induction.

While the UKALL2003 trial initially recommended CRT for patients with CNS-3, that practice ended in 2009, and CNS-directed therapy subsequently consisted of intrathecal methotrexate (MTX) at regular intervals throughout treatment. Additional weekly intrathecal MTX treatments were recommended throughout induction for patients with CNS-3.

In the UKALL2011 trial, the weekly intrathecal MTX treatments were recommended for patients with CNS-2, as well as CNS-3.

Overall, among those with CNS data available, 557 patients had CNS-1 (87.4%), 44 CNS-2 (6.9%), and 36 CNS-3 (5.7%).

For the outcomes of 4-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in the combined cohort of the 2 UK trials, there were no significant differences between CNS-1, 2 or 3 groups.

Specifically, the mean rates of 4-year CIR in the CNS-1, 2, and 3 groups were 13.6%, 25.9% and 24.6%, respectively (P = .241); mean EFS rates were 82.9%, 74.1% and 77.8% (P = .623), and OS rates were 88.6%, 80.9% and 91.8%, (P = .453).

“Most importantly, outcomes are not significantly different for the patients with CNS-3, despite omission of CRT in the UK cohort,” the authors underscored.

Comparatively, in the cohort of the 2 COG trials, there were significant differences based on CNS status for 4-year CIR (P = .0002); EFS (P = .0004) and OS (P = .005).

The 4-year relapse rates among those with CNS-3 in the UK cohort were slightly higher compared with those in the COG cohort (24.6% UK vs 17.9%, COG). However, the difference did not translate to poorer long-term survival in the UK cohort (91.8% vs 82.7%, respectively).

Those findings are consistent with a previous meta-analysis that Dr. Vora and his colleagues conducted of more than 16,000 patients with mainly B-cell ALL, which showed that CRT reduced the risk of isolated and combined CNS relapse in patients with CNS-3. However, that risk had no impact on EFS and OS.

Of note, patients in the UK cohort with CNS-2 had worse outcomes compared with the COG group, with double the rate of relapse and lower EFS and OS. However, the authors speculate that factors including a lower proportion of patients with CNS-2 in the UK cohort and differences in methodologies may explain those different outcomes and may preclude their generalizability to other groups.

Overall, “these findings corroborate those of earlier studies that CRT has marginal, if any benefit, for any sub-group of ALL, especially as part of contemporary treatment,” Dr. Vora said in an interview.

In terms of therapies that do appear to make a difference in the treatment of CNS-3, Dr. Vora noted that the addition of nelarabine in the COG AALL0434 trial showed “remarkable benefit” in the CNS-3 group, with a 93.1% rate of disease-free survival in those patients versus 70.2% without nelarabine.

Importantly, those patients did also receive CRT. However, Dr. Vora and colleagues underscore that “the improvement is impressive and raises the question of whether nelarabine would have a similar beneficial effect in the absence of CRT.”

In an editorial published with the COG trials, Josep-Maria Ribera, MD, of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute, in Barcelona, Spain, agrees that “better approaches clearly are needed to treat CNS-3 T-ALL, especially if omission of CRT is a priority.”

Noting the improvements observed with nelarabine, as well as Capizzi escalating-dose methotrexate (C-MTX), and dexamethasone in reducing the risk of CNS relapse, he speculates that “it is possible that the additional use of C-MTX and induction dexamethasone could eliminate the need for CRT in these patients.”

The authors and Dr. Ribera had no disclosures to report.

In treating young patients with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL), prophylactic central nervous system (CNS)-directed cranial radiotherapy (CRT) can safely be omitted even for those with the greatest CNS involvement,i.e., CNS-3 disease. Doing so spares patients the treatment’s toxic effects without heightening the risk of relapse.

“Overall, comparison of these cohorts provides a strong indication that CRT provides minimal benefit to patients with CNS-3 disease at diagnosis,” first author Ajay Vora, MD, a consultant hematologist with Great Ormond Street Hospital, in London, and his colleagues report in a research letter published recently in Blood Advances.

“Given the high rates of neurocognitive impairment and secondary CNS malignancies, we believe strong consideration should be given to eliminating CRT in first-line treatment for all patients with T-ALL,” they wrote.

More aggressive than B-cell ALL, T-ALL is characterized by a higher likelihood of infiltration of the CNS at diagnosis, which increases the risk of relapse after treatment.

Until recently, treatment of T-ALL long entailed CNS-directed therapy using prophylactic CRT. Now, however, due to the risks of significant toxicity, including neurocognitive defects and secondary cancers, CRT is usually either omitted or limited to key subgroups, such as those with CNS-3 disease. As an alternative, intrathecal chemotherapy is used, the authors explain.

In a 2023 study evaluating the consecutive Children’s Oncology Group (COG) AALL0434 and AALL1231 phase 3 trials of 2,164 patients with T-ALL, patients with CNS-3 at diagnosis were found to have worse outcomes, compared with CNS-1 and 2.

Importantly, the outcomes in both of those two trials were similar, despite the use of CRT in more than 90% of patients in the AALL0434 trial--but in only 10% of patients AALL1231 trial (mainly those with CNS-3 and at high-risk). These outcomes suggested that CRT can safely be eliminated for CNS-1 and 2 patients.

With CRT used in both trials among patients with CNS-3, conclusions about eliminating CRT among those patients could not be drawn. However, with other large groups (including the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group), eliminating CRT in the frontline treatment of all patients with T-ALL, including those with CNS-3, is what Dr. Vora and colleagues sought to further investigate.

For the current study, they evaluated outcomes in the UKALL2003 and UKALL2011 trials conducted by the UK National Cancer Research Institute, in which CRT was eliminated for all patients — including those with CNS-3 — and compared them with the COG AALL0434 and AALL1231 trials.

In the UK trials, involving 665 patients with T-ALL aged 1 to 24, treatment included a dexamethasone-based backbone chemotherapy consisting of a 4-drug induction, Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM) consolidation, interim maintenance, delayed intensification, and maintenance therapy, with the treatment stratified based on morphological early response and minimal residual disease at the end of induction.

While the UKALL2003 trial initially recommended CRT for patients with CNS-3, that practice ended in 2009, and CNS-directed therapy subsequently consisted of intrathecal methotrexate (MTX) at regular intervals throughout treatment. Additional weekly intrathecal MTX treatments were recommended throughout induction for patients with CNS-3.

In the UKALL2011 trial, the weekly intrathecal MTX treatments were recommended for patients with CNS-2, as well as CNS-3.

Overall, among those with CNS data available, 557 patients had CNS-1 (87.4%), 44 CNS-2 (6.9%), and 36 CNS-3 (5.7%).

For the outcomes of 4-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in the combined cohort of the 2 UK trials, there were no significant differences between CNS-1, 2 or 3 groups.

Specifically, the mean rates of 4-year CIR in the CNS-1, 2, and 3 groups were 13.6%, 25.9% and 24.6%, respectively (P = .241); mean EFS rates were 82.9%, 74.1% and 77.8% (P = .623), and OS rates were 88.6%, 80.9% and 91.8%, (P = .453).

“Most importantly, outcomes are not significantly different for the patients with CNS-3, despite omission of CRT in the UK cohort,” the authors underscored.

Comparatively, in the cohort of the 2 COG trials, there were significant differences based on CNS status for 4-year CIR (P = .0002); EFS (P = .0004) and OS (P = .005).

The 4-year relapse rates among those with CNS-3 in the UK cohort were slightly higher compared with those in the COG cohort (24.6% UK vs 17.9%, COG). However, the difference did not translate to poorer long-term survival in the UK cohort (91.8% vs 82.7%, respectively).

Those findings are consistent with a previous meta-analysis that Dr. Vora and his colleagues conducted of more than 16,000 patients with mainly B-cell ALL, which showed that CRT reduced the risk of isolated and combined CNS relapse in patients with CNS-3. However, that risk had no impact on EFS and OS.

Of note, patients in the UK cohort with CNS-2 had worse outcomes compared with the COG group, with double the rate of relapse and lower EFS and OS. However, the authors speculate that factors including a lower proportion of patients with CNS-2 in the UK cohort and differences in methodologies may explain those different outcomes and may preclude their generalizability to other groups.

Overall, “these findings corroborate those of earlier studies that CRT has marginal, if any benefit, for any sub-group of ALL, especially as part of contemporary treatment,” Dr. Vora said in an interview.

In terms of therapies that do appear to make a difference in the treatment of CNS-3, Dr. Vora noted that the addition of nelarabine in the COG AALL0434 trial showed “remarkable benefit” in the CNS-3 group, with a 93.1% rate of disease-free survival in those patients versus 70.2% without nelarabine.

Importantly, those patients did also receive CRT. However, Dr. Vora and colleagues underscore that “the improvement is impressive and raises the question of whether nelarabine would have a similar beneficial effect in the absence of CRT.”

In an editorial published with the COG trials, Josep-Maria Ribera, MD, of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute, in Barcelona, Spain, agrees that “better approaches clearly are needed to treat CNS-3 T-ALL, especially if omission of CRT is a priority.”

Noting the improvements observed with nelarabine, as well as Capizzi escalating-dose methotrexate (C-MTX), and dexamethasone in reducing the risk of CNS relapse, he speculates that “it is possible that the additional use of C-MTX and induction dexamethasone could eliminate the need for CRT in these patients.”

The authors and Dr. Ribera had no disclosures to report.

SAN DIEGO — It’s one of the great mysteries of hematology: Why do children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) fare well in the modern era of cancer treatment, while adolescents and younger adults continue to face stubbornly high mortality rates?

In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.

Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”

In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?

As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.

Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).

CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”

However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.

Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.

As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”

However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.

Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.

Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.

As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.

University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.

Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.

Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.

Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.

Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — It’s one of the great mysteries of hematology: Why do children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) fare well in the modern era of cancer treatment, while adolescents and younger adults continue to face stubbornly high mortality rates?

In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.

Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”

In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?

As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.

Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).

CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”

However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.

Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.

As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”

However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.

Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.

Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.

As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.

University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.

Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.

Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.

Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.

Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — It’s one of the great mysteries of hematology: Why do children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) fare well in the modern era of cancer treatment, while adolescents and younger adults continue to face stubbornly high mortality rates?

In a session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December, clinicians defined the extent of the problem — which one described as a “survival cliff” — and they discussed potential strategies to turn things around.

Cleveland Clinic hematologist John Molina, MD, EdM, highlighted a 2022 study that revealed “the 5-year overall survival for younger pediatric patients is quite phenomenal at 93%. But as you start shifting even to 15-19 patients, that shifts to an overall survival of 74%.”

In the rest of the young adult population, from age 20 to 39, the overall survival rate dips down to 59%. What’s going on?

As Dr. Molina noted, a 2008 study revealed that outcomes in ALL for those aged 16-20 “historically depended on which door you walked into”: the pediatric setting or the adult setting. Patients fared better on pediatric regimens.

Currently, he explained, those who begin treatment in adult oncology clinics will start with either a pediatric-inspired treatment called CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD (cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone plus methotrexate and cytarabine).

CALGB 10403 was developed based on a pediatric backbone of COG AALL0232, Dr. Molina said, and has higher doses of major myelosuppressive agents vs. HyperCVAD. A 2019 study determined that it was feasible to treat adolescents and young adults up to age 40 “with low treatment-related mortality and marked improvement in outcomes. OS [overall survival] at 3 years was 73%.”

However, Dr. Molina observed that only 39% of patients completed the treatment per protocol.

Which is better, CALGB 10403 or HyperCVAD? Dr. Molina said the risk of infertility and other long-term adverse effects is higher in HyperCVAD, but it has a lower risk of hepatic, pancreatic and thrombotic complications. And the CALGB 10403 regimen is more complicated to deliver, which is a potential obstacle in clinics without large numbers of patients.

As for outcomes, some research suggests they improve with pediatric-inspired regimens like CALGB 10403, he said, noting that “the debate continues.”

However, even with better regimens, Dr. Molina added, older ALL patients are still faring worse.

Also at the ASH presentation, Emory University/Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta pediatric cancer specialist Tamara Miller, MD, explored possible reasons that could explain the difference in outcomes based on age.

Cancer biology, response to chemotherapy, toxicities, psychosocial challenges, and low enrollment in clinical trials are all potential factors, she said. Specifically, aging into adulthood can lower tolerance of chemotherapy, and older patients are more prone to obesity, which is associated with worse outcomes, she said.

As for psychosocial challenges, it can be hard for older patients to manage their own medications, and they may lack insurance coverage, she said. Some patients may have worries about fertility, she added, and some may rebel against the requirements of treatment. Adherence is crucial to reducing risk of relapse, she added.

University of Cincinnati leukemia specialist Emily Curran, MD, told the ASH audience that researchers are exploring various avenues to improve outcomes.

Philadelphia chromosome-like (Ph-like) ALL, a subset of B-ALL, is associated with worse outcomes, she said, but it has multiple targetable pathways. An ongoing trial is exploring ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and chemotherapy in patients aged 18-39 with Ph-like ALL, Dr. Curran said.

Researchers are also wondering if up-front immunotherapy can help overcome disease biology, she said. Another potential therapy, she added, is CAR-T therapy for T-ALL.

Beyond cancer biology, “psychosocial factors are an even more challenging area in which we have fewer ongoing and less solutions,” Dr. Curran said.

Dr. Molina disclosed honoraria and consulting relationships with Autolus. Dr. Curran reported ties with Kite, Amgen, Incyte, Pfizer, Jazz, and Servier. Dr. Miller has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Clinicians are encountering unique challenges as the American Society of Hematology (ASH) develops the first-ever clinical practice guidelines for treating acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) in adolescents and young adults, a wide-ranging age span that runs from older teenagers to thirtysomethings on the cusp of middle age.

At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.

The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.

As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”

Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”

In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.

In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.

“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”

One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.

“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”

Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?

In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?

“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.

On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.

ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.

Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Clinicians are encountering unique challenges as the American Society of Hematology (ASH) develops the first-ever clinical practice guidelines for treating acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) in adolescents and young adults, a wide-ranging age span that runs from older teenagers to thirtysomethings on the cusp of middle age.

At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.

The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.

As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”

Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”

In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.

In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.

“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”

One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.

“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”

Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?

In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?

“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.

On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.

ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.

Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Clinicians are encountering unique challenges as the American Society of Hematology (ASH) develops the first-ever clinical practice guidelines for treating acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) in adolescents and young adults, a wide-ranging age span that runs from older teenagers to thirtysomethings on the cusp of middle age.

At the crux of the matter is the unusual nature of ALL, said University of Chicago leukemia specialist Wendy Stock, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology in December 2023. The disease is both rare and unique since it spans the entire lifetime from infancy to old age, she said.

The guidelines will focus on adolescents and young adults, which the National Cancer Institute defines as those aged 15-39. For these patients, “treatment is administered by the whole gamut of practitioners in the world of hematology, from pediatricians to adult hematologist/oncologists, which provides unique challenges in terms of understanding and access to care,” Dr. Stock said.

As she explained, ALL “is the bread and butter of pediatric oncology, but in the world of adult hematology-oncology, many patients are treated in small-practice settings where there have been very few uniform approaches available to the treating practitioners,” she said. “There’s not going to ever be the ability to get every — or even the majority — of adults into those big academic centers.”

Meanwhile, research from around the world has highlighted major mortality gaps between pediatric and adult care in ALL. “This has been our huge challenge: Is it the treatment approach? Is it the disease biology, the patient biology, the doctors who treat these diseases? Is it the geographic location where they’re treated? Well, we now know that, of course, it’s probably all of the above, and a lot more than that.”

In light of the need for guidance in ALL treatment, it will be crucial to disseminate data and recommendations via the guidelines, she said.

In 2021, ASH members approved the development of new clinical practice guidelines for this population. The process so far has been difficult, said pediatric oncologist Sumit Gupta, MD, PhD, of the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, at the ASH presentation.

“At one point,” Dr. Gupta recalled, “someone on our methodology team said this was the most challenging systematic review and guideline creation that they’d ever worked on, which is not what you want to hear as a co-chair.”

One major challenge for the guideline drafters is to balance ALL research findings that cover only certain ages, Dr. Gupta said. A study, for example, may only include patients up to age 21 or over age 35, making it difficult to decide how it fits into a larger evidence base for adolescents and young adults.

“We don’t always have perfect evidence. But we’re trying to take all of that and translate it into a formalized systematic review,” he said. “This is tricky for any guideline. But ALL poses a particular challenge because of how the evidence base is spread out.”

Another challenge is figuring out how to review psychosocial interventions in ALL. They are obviously crucial, he said. But should guidelines only take into account strategies that were tested in ALL? Or should they look at a wider perspective and encompass research into non–ALL-specific approaches?

In terms of guidance about frontline treatment, the guideline developers are focusing on several topics, said University of Rochester hematologist/oncologist Kristen O’Dwyer, MD, at the ASH presentation. These include: Should adolescents and young adults receive pediatric or adult regimens? Where do targeted therapy, immunotherapy, steroids, allogeneic stem cell transplants, and central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis fit in?

“Finally, there are a series of questions that are addressing the toxicity prevention and management that go along with these intensive chemotherapy regimens,” she said.

On one front, there’s a “knowledge gap” about the value of stem cell transplant vs pediatric-inspired chemotherapy as postremission therapies, Dr. O’Dwyer said, because there are no direct comparisons. What to do? “There are retrospective comparisons that are emerging along with population-level analysis, single-arm observational studies that suggest that a pediatric-based chemotherapy approach is superior with similar relapse rates and less treatment-related mortality,” she said.

ASH expects to release a draft of its ALL guidelines for adolescents and young adults later this year and publish final recommendations in late 2024 or early 2025.

Dr. Stock, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. O’Dwyer have no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — While medicine has made tremendous strides against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children in recent years, a new study finds that mortality outcomes in older adults in the United States haven’t improved since the turn of the 21st century.

From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.

By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.

“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”

According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.

One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”

For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.

The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.

There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”

Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”

Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.

Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — While medicine has made tremendous strides against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children in recent years, a new study finds that mortality outcomes in older adults in the United States haven’t improved since the turn of the 21st century.

From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.

By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.

“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”

According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.

One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”

For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.

The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.

There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”

Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”

Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.

Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO — While medicine has made tremendous strides against acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children in recent years, a new study finds that mortality outcomes in older adults in the United States haven’t improved since the turn of the 21st century.

From 1999 to 2020, age-adjusted mortality rates for patients with ALL aged 55 and up didn’t change, oncologist-hematologist Jamie L. Koprivnikar, MD, of New Jersey’s Hackensack University Medical Center, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. The rates were 10.8 per 1 million in 1999 and 10.6 per 1 million in 2020.

By contrast, the mortality rates for children aged 0-15 improved from 3.5 per 1 million in 1999 to 2.2 per 1 million in 2020.

“The findings were particularly surprising and disappointing to me,” Dr. Koprivnikar said in an interview. “My overall sense is that we’ve really improved our outcomes of treating patients with ALL and are making great strides forward, moving away from so much chemotherapy and toward more kinds of immunotherapies and targeted therapies. So we need to understand what’s driving this.”

According to Dr. Koprivnikar, ALL is more common in children than adults. However, “even though the majority of cases tend to occur in children, we know that the majority of deaths are actually in the adult patient population,” she said.

One challenge for treatment is that therapies that work well in the pediatric population aren’t as effective in adults, she said. ALL is biologically different in adults in some ways, she added, and older patients may have more comorbidities. “It ends up being a really complicated story with all of these different factors playing into the complexity.”

For the new study, Dr. Koprivnikar and colleagues analyzed death certificate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research database. They found that 17,238 people died from ALL between 1999 and 2020. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, race, and region.

The study authors noted that mortality rates didn’t change despite medical advances in ALL such as blinatumomab, inotuzumab, and targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor-based therapy. It’s unclear if the treatments have made it to the older-adult setting yet, Dr. Koprivnikar said.

There may be problems with access due to socioeconomic factors as well, she said. “ALL is actually more common among those of Hispanic heritage, and we don’t completely understand that.”

Marlise R. Luskin, MD, a leukemia specialist at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, said in an interview that the study “is a reminder that clinical trial outcomes are limited — specifically trial results that often emphasize early results and report on a select population of older patients who generally are socially resourced and physically and mentally more fit.”

Dr. Luskin added that the study reports on outcomes through 2020, including years when newer regimens were not broadly disseminated outside of clinical trials.

Moving forward, she said, “this report suggests we need to continue to develop novel approaches and understand long-term outcomes as well as ‘real world’ outcomes. A similar study should be repeated again in 3-5 years as novel regimens become standard. We hope to see improvements.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Koprivnikar disclosed consulting relationships with Alexion, GSK, Novartis, and Apellis. Other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Luskin disclosed ties with Pfizer, Novartis, Jazz, Kite, and AbbVie.

In the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (ALL), benefits observed in children and adults with an intensive regimen utilizing asparaginase extend to the adolescent and young adult population in a real-world setting.

“These findings of a large cohort of adolescents and young adults treated at a variety of U.S. centers confirm the findings of the clinical trial and also provide confidence that patients remaining on this regimen have very excellent 3-year outcomes,” senior author Lori S. Muffly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in the Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, in Stanford, California, said in an interview.

The study was presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10403 trial, the intensive asparaginase pediatric regimen, used in the adult oncology treatment setting, showed benefits in the adolescent and young adult population, with a 3-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of 59% and an overall survival rate of 73%.

Based on the results, the regimen has gained widespread utilization in the United States. However, evidence of the therapy’s safety and efficacy in real-world practice, outside of the controlled clinical trial setting, has been lacking.

To investigate, first author Dr. Muffly, along with coauthor Brandon DaSilva, MD, and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 adolescent and young adult patients aged 17 to 40 with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative B-cell ALL (B-ALL) or T-cell ALL (T-ALL).

The patients had been treated with the C10403 regimen off-trial at five U.S. centers between October 2012 and July 2020.

The study excluded Ph-positive or Burkitt-type ALL patients, in addition to those who were previously treated, with the exception of treatment with hydroxyurea, steroids, one dose of single-agent therapy, or rituximab for CD20-positive B-ALL. Of the patients, about half, 54%, were between the ages of 20 and 29; 69% were male and 55% were White. Most patients (70%) had B-cell immunophenotype, and among them, 49% had CD20 expression.

Forty percent of patients had normal karyotype; 3% were hypodiploid, 7% were KMT2a-rearranged, and 30% of the 27 patients assessed had Ph-like ALL. CNS involvement was present at diagnosis among 20% (9% with CNS2, 11% with CNS3) and 14% of patients had a mediastinal mass.

Of 71 patients with B-ALL, 16 (23%) received at least one dose of rituximab.

Among the 101 patients who started induction with C10403, 72 (71%) completed induction and continued to consolidation; 51 (50%) continued beyond consolidation, while only 31 (31%) completed the entire C10403 regimen through the end of maintenance.

For the primary outcomes, overall, the rate of induction response, defined as achieving <5% blasts on bone marrow by the end of induction or extended induction, was 91% of whom 54% were measurable residual disease [MRD]-negative (threshold of at least 10^–4).

The co-primary endpoint of 3-year event-free survival was 65% and 3-year overall survival was 82.7%.

Two deaths occurred (2%) among patients who were in remission and still receiving treatment.

Overall, 44 patients (44%) were taken off C10403 while in complete remission, including 20 (20%) to receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), 23 (23%) to receive non-HCT alternative treatments including Hyper-CVAD or blinatumomab, and 1 (1%) for patient preference.

Dr. Muffly noted that the 31% of treatment completion is about the same as that seen on the original C10403 trial.

“In clinical practice, there are a variety of reasons that these patients came off therapy — probably the most common reason is for MRD-directed therapy, such as with blinatumomab.”

“We are currently analyzing the results of the patients who came off therapy relative to those who stayed on therapy which will be interesting.”

The slightly higher real-world 3-year EFS and OS (65% and 82.7%, respectively) compared with the outcomes in the clinical trial (59% and 73%, respectively), were “very encouraging,” Dr. Muffly noted.

“A lot has changed and improved in B-ALL for adolescent/young adults since this trial closed to enrollment over 10 years ago,” she explained.

“We have better MRD methods, MRD-directed therapies, and a variety of targeted immunotherapies being used in a variety of ways,” Dr. Muffly said. “The overall outcomes for adolescent/young adult ALL patients are improving and we can see that in this data set.”

Commenting on the study, Catherine Bollard, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, noted that the study’s retrospective nature is “definitely a major caveat that needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of the data.”

Regarding the relatively low rate of regimen completion, Dr. Bollard said, “I do think the pros still outweigh the cons. But getting patients into a deep complete remission and then evaluating their outcomes after consolidation with HCT or alternative therapy is certainly an important consideration and needs to be studied further in a larger cohort.”

Overall, however, “this ‘real world’ experience validates the use of this regimen outside of the clinical trial setting,” she said.

Dr. Muffly and Dr. Bollard had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bollard is the editor-in-chief of ASH’s journal, Blood Advances.

In the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (ALL), benefits observed in children and adults with an intensive regimen utilizing asparaginase extend to the adolescent and young adult population in a real-world setting.

“These findings of a large cohort of adolescents and young adults treated at a variety of U.S. centers confirm the findings of the clinical trial and also provide confidence that patients remaining on this regimen have very excellent 3-year outcomes,” senior author Lori S. Muffly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in the Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, in Stanford, California, said in an interview.

The study was presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10403 trial, the intensive asparaginase pediatric regimen, used in the adult oncology treatment setting, showed benefits in the adolescent and young adult population, with a 3-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of 59% and an overall survival rate of 73%.

Based on the results, the regimen has gained widespread utilization in the United States. However, evidence of the therapy’s safety and efficacy in real-world practice, outside of the controlled clinical trial setting, has been lacking.

To investigate, first author Dr. Muffly, along with coauthor Brandon DaSilva, MD, and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 adolescent and young adult patients aged 17 to 40 with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative B-cell ALL (B-ALL) or T-cell ALL (T-ALL).

The patients had been treated with the C10403 regimen off-trial at five U.S. centers between October 2012 and July 2020.

The study excluded Ph-positive or Burkitt-type ALL patients, in addition to those who were previously treated, with the exception of treatment with hydroxyurea, steroids, one dose of single-agent therapy, or rituximab for CD20-positive B-ALL. Of the patients, about half, 54%, were between the ages of 20 and 29; 69% were male and 55% were White. Most patients (70%) had B-cell immunophenotype, and among them, 49% had CD20 expression.

Forty percent of patients had normal karyotype; 3% were hypodiploid, 7% were KMT2a-rearranged, and 30% of the 27 patients assessed had Ph-like ALL. CNS involvement was present at diagnosis among 20% (9% with CNS2, 11% with CNS3) and 14% of patients had a mediastinal mass.

Of 71 patients with B-ALL, 16 (23%) received at least one dose of rituximab.

Among the 101 patients who started induction with C10403, 72 (71%) completed induction and continued to consolidation; 51 (50%) continued beyond consolidation, while only 31 (31%) completed the entire C10403 regimen through the end of maintenance.

For the primary outcomes, overall, the rate of induction response, defined as achieving <5% blasts on bone marrow by the end of induction or extended induction, was 91% of whom 54% were measurable residual disease [MRD]-negative (threshold of at least 10^–4).

The co-primary endpoint of 3-year event-free survival was 65% and 3-year overall survival was 82.7%.

Two deaths occurred (2%) among patients who were in remission and still receiving treatment.

Overall, 44 patients (44%) were taken off C10403 while in complete remission, including 20 (20%) to receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), 23 (23%) to receive non-HCT alternative treatments including Hyper-CVAD or blinatumomab, and 1 (1%) for patient preference.

Dr. Muffly noted that the 31% of treatment completion is about the same as that seen on the original C10403 trial.

“In clinical practice, there are a variety of reasons that these patients came off therapy — probably the most common reason is for MRD-directed therapy, such as with blinatumomab.”

“We are currently analyzing the results of the patients who came off therapy relative to those who stayed on therapy which will be interesting.”

The slightly higher real-world 3-year EFS and OS (65% and 82.7%, respectively) compared with the outcomes in the clinical trial (59% and 73%, respectively), were “very encouraging,” Dr. Muffly noted.

“A lot has changed and improved in B-ALL for adolescent/young adults since this trial closed to enrollment over 10 years ago,” she explained.

“We have better MRD methods, MRD-directed therapies, and a variety of targeted immunotherapies being used in a variety of ways,” Dr. Muffly said. “The overall outcomes for adolescent/young adult ALL patients are improving and we can see that in this data set.”

Commenting on the study, Catherine Bollard, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, noted that the study’s retrospective nature is “definitely a major caveat that needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of the data.”

Regarding the relatively low rate of regimen completion, Dr. Bollard said, “I do think the pros still outweigh the cons. But getting patients into a deep complete remission and then evaluating their outcomes after consolidation with HCT or alternative therapy is certainly an important consideration and needs to be studied further in a larger cohort.”

Overall, however, “this ‘real world’ experience validates the use of this regimen outside of the clinical trial setting,” she said.

Dr. Muffly and Dr. Bollard had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bollard is the editor-in-chief of ASH’s journal, Blood Advances.

In the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma (ALL), benefits observed in children and adults with an intensive regimen utilizing asparaginase extend to the adolescent and young adult population in a real-world setting.

“These findings of a large cohort of adolescents and young adults treated at a variety of U.S. centers confirm the findings of the clinical trial and also provide confidence that patients remaining on this regimen have very excellent 3-year outcomes,” senior author Lori S. Muffly, MD, associate professor of medicine at Stanford University in the Division of Blood and Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, in Stanford, California, said in an interview.

The study was presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting. In the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 10403 trial, the intensive asparaginase pediatric regimen, used in the adult oncology treatment setting, showed benefits in the adolescent and young adult population, with a 3-year event-free survival (EFS) rate of 59% and an overall survival rate of 73%.

Based on the results, the regimen has gained widespread utilization in the United States. However, evidence of the therapy’s safety and efficacy in real-world practice, outside of the controlled clinical trial setting, has been lacking.

To investigate, first author Dr. Muffly, along with coauthor Brandon DaSilva, MD, and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine conducted a retrospective analysis of 101 adolescent and young adult patients aged 17 to 40 with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative B-cell ALL (B-ALL) or T-cell ALL (T-ALL).

The patients had been treated with the C10403 regimen off-trial at five U.S. centers between October 2012 and July 2020.

The study excluded Ph-positive or Burkitt-type ALL patients, in addition to those who were previously treated, with the exception of treatment with hydroxyurea, steroids, one dose of single-agent therapy, or rituximab for CD20-positive B-ALL. Of the patients, about half, 54%, were between the ages of 20 and 29; 69% were male and 55% were White. Most patients (70%) had B-cell immunophenotype, and among them, 49% had CD20 expression.

Forty percent of patients had normal karyotype; 3% were hypodiploid, 7% were KMT2a-rearranged, and 30% of the 27 patients assessed had Ph-like ALL. CNS involvement was present at diagnosis among 20% (9% with CNS2, 11% with CNS3) and 14% of patients had a mediastinal mass.

Of 71 patients with B-ALL, 16 (23%) received at least one dose of rituximab.

Among the 101 patients who started induction with C10403, 72 (71%) completed induction and continued to consolidation; 51 (50%) continued beyond consolidation, while only 31 (31%) completed the entire C10403 regimen through the end of maintenance.

For the primary outcomes, overall, the rate of induction response, defined as achieving <5% blasts on bone marrow by the end of induction or extended induction, was 91% of whom 54% were measurable residual disease [MRD]-negative (threshold of at least 10^–4).

The co-primary endpoint of 3-year event-free survival was 65% and 3-year overall survival was 82.7%.

Two deaths occurred (2%) among patients who were in remission and still receiving treatment.

Overall, 44 patients (44%) were taken off C10403 while in complete remission, including 20 (20%) to receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT), 23 (23%) to receive non-HCT alternative treatments including Hyper-CVAD or blinatumomab, and 1 (1%) for patient preference.

Dr. Muffly noted that the 31% of treatment completion is about the same as that seen on the original C10403 trial.

“In clinical practice, there are a variety of reasons that these patients came off therapy — probably the most common reason is for MRD-directed therapy, such as with blinatumomab.”

“We are currently analyzing the results of the patients who came off therapy relative to those who stayed on therapy which will be interesting.”

The slightly higher real-world 3-year EFS and OS (65% and 82.7%, respectively) compared with the outcomes in the clinical trial (59% and 73%, respectively), were “very encouraging,” Dr. Muffly noted.

“A lot has changed and improved in B-ALL for adolescent/young adults since this trial closed to enrollment over 10 years ago,” she explained.

“We have better MRD methods, MRD-directed therapies, and a variety of targeted immunotherapies being used in a variety of ways,” Dr. Muffly said. “The overall outcomes for adolescent/young adult ALL patients are improving and we can see that in this data set.”

Commenting on the study, Catherine Bollard, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, DC, noted that the study’s retrospective nature is “definitely a major caveat that needs to be considered when evaluating the impact of the data.”

Regarding the relatively low rate of regimen completion, Dr. Bollard said, “I do think the pros still outweigh the cons. But getting patients into a deep complete remission and then evaluating their outcomes after consolidation with HCT or alternative therapy is certainly an important consideration and needs to be studied further in a larger cohort.”

Overall, however, “this ‘real world’ experience validates the use of this regimen outside of the clinical trial setting,” she said.

Dr. Muffly and Dr. Bollard had no disclosures to report. Dr. Bollard is the editor-in-chief of ASH’s journal, Blood Advances.

U.S. government advisers expressed discomfort with Acrotech Biopharma’s 2030 target completion date for a study meant to prove the clinical benefits of two lymphoma drugs that the company has been selling for years.

At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.

“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.

Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.

The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.

Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.

Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.

The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.

The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.

For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.

At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.

“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
 

‘Dangerous precedent’

The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.

For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.

But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.

And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.

“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.

The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.

Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.

ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.

“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.

Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.

Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.

Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”

U.S. government advisers expressed discomfort with Acrotech Biopharma’s 2030 target completion date for a study meant to prove the clinical benefits of two lymphoma drugs that the company has been selling for years.

At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.

“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.

Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.

The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.

Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.

Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.

The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.

The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.

For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.

At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.

“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
 

‘Dangerous precedent’

The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.

For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.

But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.

And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.

“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.

The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.

Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.

ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.

“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.

Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.

Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.

Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”

U.S. government advisers expressed discomfort with Acrotech Biopharma’s 2030 target completion date for a study meant to prove the clinical benefits of two lymphoma drugs that the company has been selling for years.

At a Nov. 16 meeting, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration reviewed the reasons for delays in confirmatory trials for pralatrexate (Folotyn) and belinostat (Beleodaq), both now owned by East Windsor, N.J.–based Acrotech. The FDA granted accelerated approval for pralatrexate in 2009 and belinostat in 2014.

“The consensus of the advisory committee is that we have significant concerns about the very prolonged delay and getting these confirmatory studies underway,” said Andy Chen, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, who served as acting ODAC chair for the meeting.

Corporate ownership changes were among the reasons Acrotech cited for the long delays in producing the confirmatory research on pralatrexate and belinostat. Allos Therapeutics won the FDA approval of pralatrexate in 2009. In 2012, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals acquired Acrotech. Spectrum won approval of belinostat in 2014. Acrotech acquired Spectrum in 2019.

The FDA didn’t ask ODAC to take votes on any questions at the meeting. Instead, the FDA sought its expert feedback about how to address the prolonged delays with pralatrexate and belinostat research and, in general, how to promote more timely completion of confirmatory trials for drugs cleared by accelerated approval.

Pralatrexate and belinostat are both used to treat relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma, a rare and aggressive disease affecting about 10,000-15,000 people annually in the United States.

Through the accelerated approval process, the FDA seeks to speed medicines to people with fatal and serious conditions based on promising signs in clinical testing.

The initial pralatrexate and belinostat were based on phase 2, single-arm, monotherapy studies, with about 109 evaluable patients in the key pralatrexate study and 120 evaluable patients in the belinostat study. As is common, these phase 2 tests used measurements of cancer progression, known as the overall response rate.

The FDA then expects companies to show through more extensive testing that medicines cleared with accelerated approvals can deliver significant benefits, such as extending lives. When there are delays in confirmatory trials, patients can be exposed to medicines, often with significant side effects, that are unlikely to benefit them.

For example, the FDA granted an accelerated approval in 2011 for romidepsin for this use for peripheral T-cell lymphoma, the same condition for which pralatrexate and belinostat are used. But in 2021, Bristol-Myers Squibb withdrew the approval for that use of romidepsin when a confirmatory trial failed to meet the primary efficacy endpoint of progression free survival.

At the meeting, Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads oncology medicine at the FDA, urged Acrotech to shorten the time needed to determine whether its medicines deliver significant benefits to patients and thus merit full approval, or whether they too may fall short.

“We’re really in a situation where patients are caught in the middle here,” Dr. Pazdur said. “I feel very bad for that situation and very bad for the patients that they don’t have this information.”
 

‘Dangerous precedent’

The FDA in recent years has stepped up its efforts to get companies to complete their required studies on drugs cleared by accelerated approvals. The FDA has granted a total of 187 accelerated approvals for cancer drugs. Many of these cover new uses of established drugs and others serve to allow the introduction of new medicines.

For more than half of these cases, 96 of 187, the FDA already has learned that it made the right call in allowing early access to medicines. Companies have presented study results that confirmed the benefit of drugs and thus been able to convert accelerated approvals to traditional approvals.

But 27 of the 187 oncology accelerated approvals have been withdrawn. In these cases, subsequent research failed to establish the expected benefits of these cancer drugs.

And in 95 cases, the FDA and companies are still waiting for the results of studies to confirm the expected benefit of drugs granted accelerated approvals. The FDA classifies these as ongoing accelerated approvals. About 85% of these ongoing approvals were granted in the past 5 years, in contrast to 14 years for pralatrexate and 9 for belinostat.

“It sets a dangerous precedent for the other sponsors and drug companies to have such outliers from the same company,” said ODAC member Toni K. Choueiri, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, both in Boston.

The current agreement between the FDA and Acrotech focuses on a phase 3 trial, SPI-BEL-301 as the confirmatory study. Acrotech’s plan is to start with dose optimization studies in part 1 of the trial, with part 2 meant to see if its medicines provide a significant benefit as measured by progression-free survival.

The plan is to compare treatments. One group of patients would get belinostat plus a common cancer regimen known as CHOP, another group would get pralatrexate plus the COP cancer regimen, which is CHOP without doxorubicin, and a third group would get CHOP.

Acrotech’s current time line is for part 1, which began in October, to finish by December 2025. Then the part 2 timeline would run from 2026 to 2030, with interim progression-free survival possible by 2028.

ODAC member Ashley Rosko, MD, a hematologist from Ohio State University, Columbus, asked Acrotech what steps it will take to try to speed recruitment for the study.

“We are going to implement many strategies,” including what’s called digital amplification, replied Ashish Anvekar, president of Acrotech. This will help identify patients and channel them toward participating clinical sites.

Alexander A. Vinks, PhD, PharmD, who served as a temporary member of ODAC for the Nov. 16 meeting, said many clinicians will not be excited about enrolling patients in this kind of large, traditionally designed study.

Dr. Vinks, who is professor emeritus at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and University of Cincinnati, now works with consultant group NDA, a firm that advises companies on developing drugs.

Dr. Vinks advised Acrotech should try “to pin down what is most likely a smaller study that could be simpler, but still give robust, informative data.”

New research strengthens the body of evidence demonstrating an increased risk of blood cancer from exposure to low doses of radiation from CT scans. The results suggest that, for every 10,000 children examined with an average low dose of 8 mGy, 1-2 will likely develop a hematologic malignancy related to radiation exposure over the next 12 years.

The findings, published online in Nature Medicine, are based on more than 1.3 million CT scans in nearly 900,000 people younger than 22 years old when scanned.

This study makes a “significant contribution to the understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation, specifically x-rays, on the human body at the levels of radiation exposure encountered in diagnostic CT procedures,” Peter Marsden, PhD, and Jim Thurston, radiation protection experts at Dorset County (England) Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, said in a press release from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

These findings highlight levels of risk that “align with those currently estimated and do not suggest that the use of CT carries a greater risk than previously thought,” Dr. Marsden and Thurston said.

Exposure to moderate- (≥ 100 mGy) to high-dose (≥ 1 Gy) ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for leukemia in both children and adults. However, the risk associated with low-dose exposure (< 100 mGy) typically associated with diagnostic CT exams in children and teens remains unclear.

The current study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to improve direct estimates of cancer risk from low-dose radiation exposure from CT scans performed in childhood and adolescence. The researchers estimated radiation doses to the active bone marrow based on body part scanned, patient characteristics, time period, and inferred CT technical parameters.

A total of 790 hematologic malignancies, including lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, were identified during follow-up. More than half (51%) of the cases were diagnosed in people under age 20 and 88.5% were diagnosed in people under age 30 years.

Overall, the observational study found a nearly twofold excess risk of all hematologic malignancies per 100 mGy in children, adolescents, and young adults, with similar risk estimates observed for lymphoid and myeloid cancers. The excess relative risk for hematologic malignancies increased as the number of CT exams increased – with risk rising by 43% per exam.

The results of this study “strengthen the findings from previous low-dose studies of a consistent and robust dose-related increased risk of radiation-induced hematological malignancies” and highlight the importance of optimizing doses in this patient population, study author Elisabeth Cardis, PhD, with the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, and colleagues concluded.

Sarah McQuaid, PhD, chair of the nuclear medicine special interest group, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, England, agreed.

“This publication indicates that there could be a small cancer risk from CT scans in young people, but it is important for this to be viewed in the context of the substantial benefit these scans bring, due to the important diagnostic information they provide,” Dr. McQuaid said in the press release. Overall, “the number of patients whose medical care will have been improved from these CT scans will have been very high, and lives undoubtedly saved as a result.”

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research strengthens the body of evidence demonstrating an increased risk of blood cancer from exposure to low doses of radiation from CT scans. The results suggest that, for every 10,000 children examined with an average low dose of 8 mGy, 1-2 will likely develop a hematologic malignancy related to radiation exposure over the next 12 years.

The findings, published online in Nature Medicine, are based on more than 1.3 million CT scans in nearly 900,000 people younger than 22 years old when scanned.

This study makes a “significant contribution to the understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation, specifically x-rays, on the human body at the levels of radiation exposure encountered in diagnostic CT procedures,” Peter Marsden, PhD, and Jim Thurston, radiation protection experts at Dorset County (England) Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, said in a press release from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

These findings highlight levels of risk that “align with those currently estimated and do not suggest that the use of CT carries a greater risk than previously thought,” Dr. Marsden and Thurston said.

Exposure to moderate- (≥ 100 mGy) to high-dose (≥ 1 Gy) ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for leukemia in both children and adults. However, the risk associated with low-dose exposure (< 100 mGy) typically associated with diagnostic CT exams in children and teens remains unclear.

The current study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to improve direct estimates of cancer risk from low-dose radiation exposure from CT scans performed in childhood and adolescence. The researchers estimated radiation doses to the active bone marrow based on body part scanned, patient characteristics, time period, and inferred CT technical parameters.

A total of 790 hematologic malignancies, including lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, were identified during follow-up. More than half (51%) of the cases were diagnosed in people under age 20 and 88.5% were diagnosed in people under age 30 years.

Overall, the observational study found a nearly twofold excess risk of all hematologic malignancies per 100 mGy in children, adolescents, and young adults, with similar risk estimates observed for lymphoid and myeloid cancers. The excess relative risk for hematologic malignancies increased as the number of CT exams increased – with risk rising by 43% per exam.

The results of this study “strengthen the findings from previous low-dose studies of a consistent and robust dose-related increased risk of radiation-induced hematological malignancies” and highlight the importance of optimizing doses in this patient population, study author Elisabeth Cardis, PhD, with the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, and colleagues concluded.

Sarah McQuaid, PhD, chair of the nuclear medicine special interest group, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, England, agreed.

“This publication indicates that there could be a small cancer risk from CT scans in young people, but it is important for this to be viewed in the context of the substantial benefit these scans bring, due to the important diagnostic information they provide,” Dr. McQuaid said in the press release. Overall, “the number of patients whose medical care will have been improved from these CT scans will have been very high, and lives undoubtedly saved as a result.”

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

New research strengthens the body of evidence demonstrating an increased risk of blood cancer from exposure to low doses of radiation from CT scans. The results suggest that, for every 10,000 children examined with an average low dose of 8 mGy, 1-2 will likely develop a hematologic malignancy related to radiation exposure over the next 12 years.

The findings, published online in Nature Medicine, are based on more than 1.3 million CT scans in nearly 900,000 people younger than 22 years old when scanned.

This study makes a “significant contribution to the understanding of the effects of ionizing radiation, specifically x-rays, on the human body at the levels of radiation exposure encountered in diagnostic CT procedures,” Peter Marsden, PhD, and Jim Thurston, radiation protection experts at Dorset County (England) Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, said in a press release from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

These findings highlight levels of risk that “align with those currently estimated and do not suggest that the use of CT carries a greater risk than previously thought,” Dr. Marsden and Thurston said.

Exposure to moderate- (≥ 100 mGy) to high-dose (≥ 1 Gy) ionizing radiation is a well-established risk factor for leukemia in both children and adults. However, the risk associated with low-dose exposure (< 100 mGy) typically associated with diagnostic CT exams in children and teens remains unclear.

The current study, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, aimed to improve direct estimates of cancer risk from low-dose radiation exposure from CT scans performed in childhood and adolescence. The researchers estimated radiation doses to the active bone marrow based on body part scanned, patient characteristics, time period, and inferred CT technical parameters.

A total of 790 hematologic malignancies, including lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, were identified during follow-up. More than half (51%) of the cases were diagnosed in people under age 20 and 88.5% were diagnosed in people under age 30 years.

Overall, the observational study found a nearly twofold excess risk of all hematologic malignancies per 100 mGy in children, adolescents, and young adults, with similar risk estimates observed for lymphoid and myeloid cancers. The excess relative risk for hematologic malignancies increased as the number of CT exams increased – with risk rising by 43% per exam.

The results of this study “strengthen the findings from previous low-dose studies of a consistent and robust dose-related increased risk of radiation-induced hematological malignancies” and highlight the importance of optimizing doses in this patient population, study author Elisabeth Cardis, PhD, with the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, and colleagues concluded.

Sarah McQuaid, PhD, chair of the nuclear medicine special interest group, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, York, England, agreed.

“This publication indicates that there could be a small cancer risk from CT scans in young people, but it is important for this to be viewed in the context of the substantial benefit these scans bring, due to the important diagnostic information they provide,” Dr. McQuaid said in the press release. Overall, “the number of patients whose medical care will have been improved from these CT scans will have been very high, and lives undoubtedly saved as a result.”

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.

SAN DIEGO – The Food and Drug Administration has launched Project Optimus to dramatically overhaul how oncology therapies are developed in clinical trials, with investigational blood cancer drugs taking center stage in this effort.

The goal is “to better identify and characterize optimized doses” in early stages of research and move away from the default of the traditional maximum tolerated dose strategy, hematologist-oncologist Marc R. Theoret, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said in a presentation at the 2023 Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer annual meeting.

Earlier this year, the FDA released a draft guidance regarding the changes it hopes to see. The agency supported randomized, parallel dose-response trials when feasible, and “strong rationale for choice of dosage should be provided before initiating a registration trial(s) to support a subsequent indication and usage.”

The goal of controlling toxicity is “very highly important” in hematology research since blood cancer drugs can cause significant adverse effects in areas such as the lungs and heart, said Cecilia Yeung, MD, who led the SITC session about Project Optimus. Dr. Yeung is a clinical pathologist who works on investigational trials at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

In an interview, Dr. Yeung, who has a subspecialty in hematopathology, explained why the foundations of cancer research are changing and what hematologist-oncologists can expect to see on the horizon.
 

Q: Project Optimus aims to move beyond the traditional dose-escalation approach to the development of cancer drugs. How does that strategy work?

Dr. Yeung: Prior to Project Optimus, they’d use a 3+3 strategy in phase 1 trials: They’d give a dose to three fairly healthy patients, then they’d go up by escalating doses in more patients. They’d keep going up until two-thirds of patients at a specific dose suffered from bad side effects, then they’d back off to the last dose.

Q: This approach, which aims to identify the “maximum tolerated dose,” seemed to work well over decades of research into chemotherapy drugs. But worries arose as targeted therapies appeared in oncology areas such as blood cancer. Why did things change?

Dr. Yeung: With 3+3, you could tell pretty quickly how toxic chemotherapy was. But in targeted therapy, we were finding that these studies are not representative of actual toxicity. You’re not treating these patients for a very long time in phase 1, while patients on targeted therapy may be on these drugs for years. Concerns actually started with the first targeted drugs to treat leukemias and lymphomas. They were shown to have unexpected toxicity. A 2016 study found that drug developers had to reduce the original phase 1 dose in 45% of phase 3 trials [of small molecule and monoclonal antibody targeted agents] approved by the FDA over 12 years because of toxicity.

Q: What is FDA’s goal for Project Optimus?

Dr. Yeung: They want to have a second piece, to balance that maximum tolerated dose with a safe and tolerable dose for most people.

Q: What kind of resistance is the FDA getting from drug companies?

Dr. Yeung: The FDA makes a good argument that the system wasn’t working. But drug companies say this will drive up the cost of clinical trials and won’t allow them to treat patients with the maximal doses they could give them. I see arguments from both sides. There has to be a balance between the two.

Q: How will all this affect drug development?

Dr. Yeung: Drugs may become more expensive because much more testing will happen during clinical trials.

Q: Could this reduce the number of investigational drugs?

Dr. Yeung: Hopefully not, but this is huge endeavor for smaller companies that are strapped for funding.

Q: What do you think the future holds?

Dr. Yeung: Ultimately, this is a good thing because if everything works out, we’ll have fewer toxic side effects. But we’re going to have to go through a period of growing pains.