Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/16/2022 - 11:26

 

Researchers report that they’ve confirmed the usefulness of a new tool to help physicians pinpoint prognoses for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

“Physicians may use this tool to support decisions regarding supportive care, manage the patient’s and physician’s expectations, and potentially tailor therapy,” study lead author and epidemiologist Emelie Rotbain, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study appeared Jan. 10 in the journal Blood Advances.

According to Dr. Rotbain, most other CLL predictive tools are based on biological markers and laboratory data. By contrast, the research team’s CLL comorbidity index (CLL-CI) relies on answers to questions about comorbidities to determine whether patients are at low, intermediate, or high risk.

Researchers developed the questions based on an analysis of categories in the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale that are most linked to event-free survival (EFS) from time of treatment.

The tool looks at three organ systems – vascular, upper GI, and endocrine – and asks about conditions such as diabetes and chronic use of a proton pump inhibitor, study coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Alexey V. Danilov, MD, PhD, codirector of the Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. The tool then generates a score based on the variables.

For the new study, the researchers retrospectively applied the tool to 4,975 patients who appeared in the Danish National CLL Register from 2008 to 2018 (61% male, median age 70.7.). Of those, 1,513 received first-line treatment during follow-up (median = 4.39 years).

At diagnosis, nearly two-thirds (63%) of patients were considered to be low risk. None of these had endocrinological, upper gastrointestinal, or vascular disease. Another 30% were considered to be at intermediate risk. The remaining 7% were at high risk. They had high levels of endocrinological (55.6%), upper gastrointestinal (64.6%), and vascular disease (91.0%).

The high-risk patients had a median survival of 6.0 years. The intermediate-risk patients lived for a median of 8.5 years, while the low-risk patients didn’t reach a median survival level.

Fifty-six percent of high-risk patients were treated within 4 years, compared to 20%-30% of intermediate- and low-risk patients. Median event-free survival from time of treatment was 8.4, 4.4, and 2.2 years for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively.

The authors cautioned that “differences in survival by type of treatment, particularly in patients treated with targeted therapies who were underrepresented in this study, could influence survival and limit the generalizability of these results.”

They added that “while prognostic factors should remain key for treatment decisions, clinical trial data from pivotal phase 3 trials with novel targeted agents versus chemoimmunotherapy should be reanalyzed with addition of CLL-CI to assess the optimal treatment for patients according to CLL-CI.”

The tool is not yet available online, Dr. Danilov said, “but that is something that we as a group could potentially work on.”

Joanna Rhodes, MD, assistant professor with Northwell Health Cancer Institute/Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the tool is easy to use and appropriate to apply at first consultation. It should be used in conjunction with the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI), she said.

“We often discuss frailty as a factor in types of and timing of treatment for patients with CLL, but often this is not directly measured in clinical practice,” she said. “The CLL-CI is associated with important outcomes, particularly overall survival, which is our most important metric in oncology. Additionally, it provides important information on time to first treatment and overall survival, which are useful when we are counseling patients.”

Like the study authors, Dr. Rhodes cautioned that the CLL-CI has not been validated specifically in patients treated with targeted therapies. “It may not be applicable in this setting, particularly in the front-line setting, as these treatments were underrepresented in this cohort. Further studies in this population are needed to answer this question.”

The study is funded in part by Novo Nordisk Foundation. Several study authors report various disclosures outside the scope of this study. Dr. Rhodes has no disclosures.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Researchers report that they’ve confirmed the usefulness of a new tool to help physicians pinpoint prognoses for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

“Physicians may use this tool to support decisions regarding supportive care, manage the patient’s and physician’s expectations, and potentially tailor therapy,” study lead author and epidemiologist Emelie Rotbain, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study appeared Jan. 10 in the journal Blood Advances.

According to Dr. Rotbain, most other CLL predictive tools are based on biological markers and laboratory data. By contrast, the research team’s CLL comorbidity index (CLL-CI) relies on answers to questions about comorbidities to determine whether patients are at low, intermediate, or high risk.

Researchers developed the questions based on an analysis of categories in the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale that are most linked to event-free survival (EFS) from time of treatment.

The tool looks at three organ systems – vascular, upper GI, and endocrine – and asks about conditions such as diabetes and chronic use of a proton pump inhibitor, study coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Alexey V. Danilov, MD, PhD, codirector of the Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. The tool then generates a score based on the variables.

For the new study, the researchers retrospectively applied the tool to 4,975 patients who appeared in the Danish National CLL Register from 2008 to 2018 (61% male, median age 70.7.). Of those, 1,513 received first-line treatment during follow-up (median = 4.39 years).

At diagnosis, nearly two-thirds (63%) of patients were considered to be low risk. None of these had endocrinological, upper gastrointestinal, or vascular disease. Another 30% were considered to be at intermediate risk. The remaining 7% were at high risk. They had high levels of endocrinological (55.6%), upper gastrointestinal (64.6%), and vascular disease (91.0%).

The high-risk patients had a median survival of 6.0 years. The intermediate-risk patients lived for a median of 8.5 years, while the low-risk patients didn’t reach a median survival level.

Fifty-six percent of high-risk patients were treated within 4 years, compared to 20%-30% of intermediate- and low-risk patients. Median event-free survival from time of treatment was 8.4, 4.4, and 2.2 years for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively.

The authors cautioned that “differences in survival by type of treatment, particularly in patients treated with targeted therapies who were underrepresented in this study, could influence survival and limit the generalizability of these results.”

They added that “while prognostic factors should remain key for treatment decisions, clinical trial data from pivotal phase 3 trials with novel targeted agents versus chemoimmunotherapy should be reanalyzed with addition of CLL-CI to assess the optimal treatment for patients according to CLL-CI.”

The tool is not yet available online, Dr. Danilov said, “but that is something that we as a group could potentially work on.”

Joanna Rhodes, MD, assistant professor with Northwell Health Cancer Institute/Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the tool is easy to use and appropriate to apply at first consultation. It should be used in conjunction with the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI), she said.

“We often discuss frailty as a factor in types of and timing of treatment for patients with CLL, but often this is not directly measured in clinical practice,” she said. “The CLL-CI is associated with important outcomes, particularly overall survival, which is our most important metric in oncology. Additionally, it provides important information on time to first treatment and overall survival, which are useful when we are counseling patients.”

Like the study authors, Dr. Rhodes cautioned that the CLL-CI has not been validated specifically in patients treated with targeted therapies. “It may not be applicable in this setting, particularly in the front-line setting, as these treatments were underrepresented in this cohort. Further studies in this population are needed to answer this question.”

The study is funded in part by Novo Nordisk Foundation. Several study authors report various disclosures outside the scope of this study. Dr. Rhodes has no disclosures.

 

Researchers report that they’ve confirmed the usefulness of a new tool to help physicians pinpoint prognoses for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).

“Physicians may use this tool to support decisions regarding supportive care, manage the patient’s and physician’s expectations, and potentially tailor therapy,” study lead author and epidemiologist Emelie Rotbain, MD, PhD, of Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, said in an interview.

The study appeared Jan. 10 in the journal Blood Advances.

According to Dr. Rotbain, most other CLL predictive tools are based on biological markers and laboratory data. By contrast, the research team’s CLL comorbidity index (CLL-CI) relies on answers to questions about comorbidities to determine whether patients are at low, intermediate, or high risk.

Researchers developed the questions based on an analysis of categories in the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale that are most linked to event-free survival (EFS) from time of treatment.

The tool looks at three organ systems – vascular, upper GI, and endocrine – and asks about conditions such as diabetes and chronic use of a proton pump inhibitor, study coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Alexey V. Danilov, MD, PhD, codirector of the Toni Stephenson Lymphoma Center at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif., said in an interview. The tool then generates a score based on the variables.

For the new study, the researchers retrospectively applied the tool to 4,975 patients who appeared in the Danish National CLL Register from 2008 to 2018 (61% male, median age 70.7.). Of those, 1,513 received first-line treatment during follow-up (median = 4.39 years).

At diagnosis, nearly two-thirds (63%) of patients were considered to be low risk. None of these had endocrinological, upper gastrointestinal, or vascular disease. Another 30% were considered to be at intermediate risk. The remaining 7% were at high risk. They had high levels of endocrinological (55.6%), upper gastrointestinal (64.6%), and vascular disease (91.0%).

The high-risk patients had a median survival of 6.0 years. The intermediate-risk patients lived for a median of 8.5 years, while the low-risk patients didn’t reach a median survival level.

Fifty-six percent of high-risk patients were treated within 4 years, compared to 20%-30% of intermediate- and low-risk patients. Median event-free survival from time of treatment was 8.4, 4.4, and 2.2 years for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively.

The authors cautioned that “differences in survival by type of treatment, particularly in patients treated with targeted therapies who were underrepresented in this study, could influence survival and limit the generalizability of these results.”

They added that “while prognostic factors should remain key for treatment decisions, clinical trial data from pivotal phase 3 trials with novel targeted agents versus chemoimmunotherapy should be reanalyzed with addition of CLL-CI to assess the optimal treatment for patients according to CLL-CI.”

The tool is not yet available online, Dr. Danilov said, “but that is something that we as a group could potentially work on.”

Joanna Rhodes, MD, assistant professor with Northwell Health Cancer Institute/Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, N.Y., said in an interview that the tool is easy to use and appropriate to apply at first consultation. It should be used in conjunction with the International Prognostic Index for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL-IPI), she said.

“We often discuss frailty as a factor in types of and timing of treatment for patients with CLL, but often this is not directly measured in clinical practice,” she said. “The CLL-CI is associated with important outcomes, particularly overall survival, which is our most important metric in oncology. Additionally, it provides important information on time to first treatment and overall survival, which are useful when we are counseling patients.”

Like the study authors, Dr. Rhodes cautioned that the CLL-CI has not been validated specifically in patients treated with targeted therapies. “It may not be applicable in this setting, particularly in the front-line setting, as these treatments were underrepresented in this cohort. Further studies in this population are needed to answer this question.”

The study is funded in part by Novo Nordisk Foundation. Several study authors report various disclosures outside the scope of this study. Dr. Rhodes has no disclosures.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM BLOOD ADVANCES

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article