User login
Variant not linked to CLL in Southeast Europe
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – New research suggests there is no association between the PTPN22 R620W polymorphism and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or autoimmune hematologic disorders in patients from the Republic of Macedonia.
Past studies have shown an association between the PTPN22 R620W variant and both CLL and autoimmune diseases in patients from Northwest Europe. However, a new study of Macedonian patients suggests there is no association between the variant and CLL, autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) for patients from Southeast Europe.
Irina Panovska-Stavridis, PhD, of Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, and her colleagues presented this finding at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
“A lot of data from the literature suggests [the PTPN22 R620W variant ] has a role in developing multiple immune diseases, but it is validated just in patients from Northwest Europe,” Dr. Panovska-Stavridis noted.
She and her colleagues decided to assess the frequency of the PTPN22 R620W variant (C1858T, rs2476601) in individuals from Southeast Europe, particularly the Republic of Macedonia.
The researchers evaluated 320 patients – 168 with CLL, 66 with AIHA, and 86 with ITP – and 182 age- and sex-matched control subjects with no history of malignant or autoimmune disease.
The team found a similar frequency of the minor T allele and genotype distribution in control subjects and patients. For example, minor T allele was 0.107 in CLL, 0.067 in AIHA, 0.036 in ITP, and 0.05 in controls. Similarly, the frequency of the CC genotype was 0.809 in CLL, 0.166 in AIHA, 0.023 in ITP, and 0.901 in controls.
Dr. Panovska-Stavridis said these results suggest the PTPN22 R620W variant is not a risk factor for the development of CLL, AIHA, or ITP in patients from Southeast Europe.
She also said the results suggest the influence of the variant on lymphocytic homeostasis is affected by certain genetic and environmental factors, and the development of CLL and autoimmune diseases is influenced by race/ethnicity-based variations in the germline composition of the IGHV locus in correlation with environmental factors.
Dr. Panovska-Stavridis did not declare any conflicts of interest.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – New research suggests there is no association between the PTPN22 R620W polymorphism and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or autoimmune hematologic disorders in patients from the Republic of Macedonia.
Past studies have shown an association between the PTPN22 R620W variant and both CLL and autoimmune diseases in patients from Northwest Europe. However, a new study of Macedonian patients suggests there is no association between the variant and CLL, autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) for patients from Southeast Europe.
Irina Panovska-Stavridis, PhD, of Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, and her colleagues presented this finding at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
“A lot of data from the literature suggests [the PTPN22 R620W variant ] has a role in developing multiple immune diseases, but it is validated just in patients from Northwest Europe,” Dr. Panovska-Stavridis noted.
She and her colleagues decided to assess the frequency of the PTPN22 R620W variant (C1858T, rs2476601) in individuals from Southeast Europe, particularly the Republic of Macedonia.
The researchers evaluated 320 patients – 168 with CLL, 66 with AIHA, and 86 with ITP – and 182 age- and sex-matched control subjects with no history of malignant or autoimmune disease.
The team found a similar frequency of the minor T allele and genotype distribution in control subjects and patients. For example, minor T allele was 0.107 in CLL, 0.067 in AIHA, 0.036 in ITP, and 0.05 in controls. Similarly, the frequency of the CC genotype was 0.809 in CLL, 0.166 in AIHA, 0.023 in ITP, and 0.901 in controls.
Dr. Panovska-Stavridis said these results suggest the PTPN22 R620W variant is not a risk factor for the development of CLL, AIHA, or ITP in patients from Southeast Europe.
She also said the results suggest the influence of the variant on lymphocytic homeostasis is affected by certain genetic and environmental factors, and the development of CLL and autoimmune diseases is influenced by race/ethnicity-based variations in the germline composition of the IGHV locus in correlation with environmental factors.
Dr. Panovska-Stavridis did not declare any conflicts of interest.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – New research suggests there is no association between the PTPN22 R620W polymorphism and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) or autoimmune hematologic disorders in patients from the Republic of Macedonia.
Past studies have shown an association between the PTPN22 R620W variant and both CLL and autoimmune diseases in patients from Northwest Europe. However, a new study of Macedonian patients suggests there is no association between the variant and CLL, autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) for patients from Southeast Europe.
Irina Panovska-Stavridis, PhD, of Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, and her colleagues presented this finding at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
“A lot of data from the literature suggests [the PTPN22 R620W variant ] has a role in developing multiple immune diseases, but it is validated just in patients from Northwest Europe,” Dr. Panovska-Stavridis noted.
She and her colleagues decided to assess the frequency of the PTPN22 R620W variant (C1858T, rs2476601) in individuals from Southeast Europe, particularly the Republic of Macedonia.
The researchers evaluated 320 patients – 168 with CLL, 66 with AIHA, and 86 with ITP – and 182 age- and sex-matched control subjects with no history of malignant or autoimmune disease.
The team found a similar frequency of the minor T allele and genotype distribution in control subjects and patients. For example, minor T allele was 0.107 in CLL, 0.067 in AIHA, 0.036 in ITP, and 0.05 in controls. Similarly, the frequency of the CC genotype was 0.809 in CLL, 0.166 in AIHA, 0.023 in ITP, and 0.901 in controls.
Dr. Panovska-Stavridis said these results suggest the PTPN22 R620W variant is not a risk factor for the development of CLL, AIHA, or ITP in patients from Southeast Europe.
She also said the results suggest the influence of the variant on lymphocytic homeostasis is affected by certain genetic and environmental factors, and the development of CLL and autoimmune diseases is influenced by race/ethnicity-based variations in the germline composition of the IGHV locus in correlation with environmental factors.
Dr. Panovska-Stavridis did not declare any conflicts of interest.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
REPORTING FROM LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The frequency of minor T allele was 0.107 in patients with CLL, 0.067 in patients with autoimmune hemolytic anemia, 0.036 in patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, and 0.05 in controls.
Study details: An analysis of the frequency of the PTPN22 R620W variant in 320 individuals from the Republic of Macedonia.
Disclosures: Dr. Panovska-Stavridis did not declare any conflicts of interest.
When to choose stem cell transplant in PTCL
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – , according to one expert.
The success of HSCT varies according to the subtype of PTCL and the type of transplant, Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD, of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, said at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
For example, autologous (auto) HSCT given as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care for PTCL–not otherwise specified (NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and certain patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), according to Dr. Bazarbachi.
On the other hand, auto-HSCT should never be used in patients with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL).
Both auto-HSCT and allogeneic (allo) HSCT are options for patients with nonlocalized, extranodal natural killer T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, but only at certain times.
State of PTCL treatment
Patients with newly diagnosed PTCL are no longer treated like patients with B-cell lymphoma, but treatment outcomes in PTCL still leave a lot to be desired, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
He noted that, with any of the chemotherapy regimens used, typically, about a third of patients are primary refractory, a third relapse, and a quarter are cured. Only two forms of PTCL are frequently curable – localized ENKTL and anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive (ALK-positive) ALCL.
Current treatment strategies for PTCL do include HSCT, but recommendations vary. Dr. Bazarbachi made the following recommendations, supported by evidence from clinical trials.
PTCL-NOS, AITL, and ALCL
For patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, auto-HSCT as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care in patients who responded to induction, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
In a study published in 2012, high-dose chemotherapy and auto-HSCT as consolidation improved 5-year overall survival – compared with previous results with CHOP – in patients with ALK-negative ALCL, AITL, PTCL-NOS, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;30[25]:3093-9; ISRN Hematol. 2011 Jun 16. doi: 10.5402/2011/623924).
Allo-HSCT may also be an option for frontline consolidation in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, according to Dr. Bazarbachi.
“Allo-transplant is not dead in this indication,” he said. “But it should be either part of a clinical trial or [given] to some selected patients – those with persistent bone marrow involvement, very young patients, or patients with primary refractory disease.”
Results from the COMPLETE study showed improved survival in patients who received consolidation with auto- or allo-HSCT, compared with patients who did not receive a transplant (Blood. 2017;130:342).
COMPLETE patients with AITL or PTCL-NOS had improvements in progression-free and overall survival with HSCT. The survival advantage was “less evident” in patients with ALCL, the researchers said, but this trial included both ALK-negative and ALK-positive patients.
Allo- and auto-HSCT can be options after relapse in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
However, chemosensitive patients who have relapsed should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it frontline. Patients who have already undergone auto-HSCT can receive allo-HSCT, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
He added that refractory patients should not undergo auto-HSCT and should receive allo-HSCT only within the context of a clinical trial.
ATLL
ATLL has a dismal prognosis, but allo-HSCT as frontline consolidation is potentially curative, Dr. Bazarbachi said. It is most effective in patients who have achieved a complete or partial response to induction (Blood. 2012 Aug 23;120[8]:1734-41).
However, allo-HSCT should not be given as consolidation to ATLL patients who have received prior mogamulizumab. These patients have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality if they undergo allo-HSCT.
Also, allo-HSCT should not be given to refractory ATLL patients, although it may be an option for relapsed patients.
Dr. Bazarbachi stressed that ATLL patients should not receive auto-HSCT at any time, as frontline consolidation, after relapse, or if they have refractory disease.
Auto-HSCT “does not work in this disease,” he said. In a study published in 2014, all four ATLL patients who underwent auto-HSCT “rapidly” died (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Oct;49[10]:1266-8).
ENKTL
Dr. Bazarbachi said frontline consolidation with auto-HSCT should be considered the standard of care for patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type.
Auto-HSCT has been shown to improve survival in these patients, and it is most effective when patients have achieved a complete response to induction (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Dec;14[12]:1356-64).
Allo-HSCT also is an option for frontline consolidation in patients with nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
He added that chemosensitive patients who have relapsed can receive allo-HSCT, but they should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it in the frontline setting. Both types of transplant should take place when patients are in complete remission.
Patients with refractory, nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, should not receive auto-HSCT, but allo-HSCT is an option, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
Dr. Bazarbachi did not declare any conflicts of interest.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – , according to one expert.
The success of HSCT varies according to the subtype of PTCL and the type of transplant, Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD, of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, said at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
For example, autologous (auto) HSCT given as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care for PTCL–not otherwise specified (NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and certain patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), according to Dr. Bazarbachi.
On the other hand, auto-HSCT should never be used in patients with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL).
Both auto-HSCT and allogeneic (allo) HSCT are options for patients with nonlocalized, extranodal natural killer T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, but only at certain times.
State of PTCL treatment
Patients with newly diagnosed PTCL are no longer treated like patients with B-cell lymphoma, but treatment outcomes in PTCL still leave a lot to be desired, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
He noted that, with any of the chemotherapy regimens used, typically, about a third of patients are primary refractory, a third relapse, and a quarter are cured. Only two forms of PTCL are frequently curable – localized ENKTL and anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive (ALK-positive) ALCL.
Current treatment strategies for PTCL do include HSCT, but recommendations vary. Dr. Bazarbachi made the following recommendations, supported by evidence from clinical trials.
PTCL-NOS, AITL, and ALCL
For patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, auto-HSCT as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care in patients who responded to induction, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
In a study published in 2012, high-dose chemotherapy and auto-HSCT as consolidation improved 5-year overall survival – compared with previous results with CHOP – in patients with ALK-negative ALCL, AITL, PTCL-NOS, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;30[25]:3093-9; ISRN Hematol. 2011 Jun 16. doi: 10.5402/2011/623924).
Allo-HSCT may also be an option for frontline consolidation in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, according to Dr. Bazarbachi.
“Allo-transplant is not dead in this indication,” he said. “But it should be either part of a clinical trial or [given] to some selected patients – those with persistent bone marrow involvement, very young patients, or patients with primary refractory disease.”
Results from the COMPLETE study showed improved survival in patients who received consolidation with auto- or allo-HSCT, compared with patients who did not receive a transplant (Blood. 2017;130:342).
COMPLETE patients with AITL or PTCL-NOS had improvements in progression-free and overall survival with HSCT. The survival advantage was “less evident” in patients with ALCL, the researchers said, but this trial included both ALK-negative and ALK-positive patients.
Allo- and auto-HSCT can be options after relapse in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
However, chemosensitive patients who have relapsed should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it frontline. Patients who have already undergone auto-HSCT can receive allo-HSCT, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
He added that refractory patients should not undergo auto-HSCT and should receive allo-HSCT only within the context of a clinical trial.
ATLL
ATLL has a dismal prognosis, but allo-HSCT as frontline consolidation is potentially curative, Dr. Bazarbachi said. It is most effective in patients who have achieved a complete or partial response to induction (Blood. 2012 Aug 23;120[8]:1734-41).
However, allo-HSCT should not be given as consolidation to ATLL patients who have received prior mogamulizumab. These patients have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality if they undergo allo-HSCT.
Also, allo-HSCT should not be given to refractory ATLL patients, although it may be an option for relapsed patients.
Dr. Bazarbachi stressed that ATLL patients should not receive auto-HSCT at any time, as frontline consolidation, after relapse, or if they have refractory disease.
Auto-HSCT “does not work in this disease,” he said. In a study published in 2014, all four ATLL patients who underwent auto-HSCT “rapidly” died (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Oct;49[10]:1266-8).
ENKTL
Dr. Bazarbachi said frontline consolidation with auto-HSCT should be considered the standard of care for patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type.
Auto-HSCT has been shown to improve survival in these patients, and it is most effective when patients have achieved a complete response to induction (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Dec;14[12]:1356-64).
Allo-HSCT also is an option for frontline consolidation in patients with nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
He added that chemosensitive patients who have relapsed can receive allo-HSCT, but they should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it in the frontline setting. Both types of transplant should take place when patients are in complete remission.
Patients with refractory, nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, should not receive auto-HSCT, but allo-HSCT is an option, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
Dr. Bazarbachi did not declare any conflicts of interest.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – , according to one expert.
The success of HSCT varies according to the subtype of PTCL and the type of transplant, Ali Bazarbachi, MD, PhD, of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, said at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
For example, autologous (auto) HSCT given as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care for PTCL–not otherwise specified (NOS), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), and certain patients with anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL), according to Dr. Bazarbachi.
On the other hand, auto-HSCT should never be used in patients with adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma (ATLL).
Both auto-HSCT and allogeneic (allo) HSCT are options for patients with nonlocalized, extranodal natural killer T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL), nasal type, but only at certain times.
State of PTCL treatment
Patients with newly diagnosed PTCL are no longer treated like patients with B-cell lymphoma, but treatment outcomes in PTCL still leave a lot to be desired, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
He noted that, with any of the chemotherapy regimens used, typically, about a third of patients are primary refractory, a third relapse, and a quarter are cured. Only two forms of PTCL are frequently curable – localized ENKTL and anaplastic lymphoma kinase–positive (ALK-positive) ALCL.
Current treatment strategies for PTCL do include HSCT, but recommendations vary. Dr. Bazarbachi made the following recommendations, supported by evidence from clinical trials.
PTCL-NOS, AITL, and ALCL
For patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, auto-HSCT as frontline consolidation can be considered the standard of care in patients who responded to induction, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
In a study published in 2012, high-dose chemotherapy and auto-HSCT as consolidation improved 5-year overall survival – compared with previous results with CHOP – in patients with ALK-negative ALCL, AITL, PTCL-NOS, and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (J Clin Oncol. 2012 Sep 1;30[25]:3093-9; ISRN Hematol. 2011 Jun 16. doi: 10.5402/2011/623924).
Allo-HSCT may also be an option for frontline consolidation in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, according to Dr. Bazarbachi.
“Allo-transplant is not dead in this indication,” he said. “But it should be either part of a clinical trial or [given] to some selected patients – those with persistent bone marrow involvement, very young patients, or patients with primary refractory disease.”
Results from the COMPLETE study showed improved survival in patients who received consolidation with auto- or allo-HSCT, compared with patients who did not receive a transplant (Blood. 2017;130:342).
COMPLETE patients with AITL or PTCL-NOS had improvements in progression-free and overall survival with HSCT. The survival advantage was “less evident” in patients with ALCL, the researchers said, but this trial included both ALK-negative and ALK-positive patients.
Allo- and auto-HSCT can be options after relapse in patients with PTCL-NOS, AITL, or ALK-negative, non-DUSP22 ALCL, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
However, chemosensitive patients who have relapsed should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it frontline. Patients who have already undergone auto-HSCT can receive allo-HSCT, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
He added that refractory patients should not undergo auto-HSCT and should receive allo-HSCT only within the context of a clinical trial.
ATLL
ATLL has a dismal prognosis, but allo-HSCT as frontline consolidation is potentially curative, Dr. Bazarbachi said. It is most effective in patients who have achieved a complete or partial response to induction (Blood. 2012 Aug 23;120[8]:1734-41).
However, allo-HSCT should not be given as consolidation to ATLL patients who have received prior mogamulizumab. These patients have an increased risk of morbidity and mortality if they undergo allo-HSCT.
Also, allo-HSCT should not be given to refractory ATLL patients, although it may be an option for relapsed patients.
Dr. Bazarbachi stressed that ATLL patients should not receive auto-HSCT at any time, as frontline consolidation, after relapse, or if they have refractory disease.
Auto-HSCT “does not work in this disease,” he said. In a study published in 2014, all four ATLL patients who underwent auto-HSCT “rapidly” died (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014 Oct;49[10]:1266-8).
ENKTL
Dr. Bazarbachi said frontline consolidation with auto-HSCT should be considered the standard of care for patients with non-localized ENKTL, nasal type.
Auto-HSCT has been shown to improve survival in these patients, and it is most effective when patients have achieved a complete response to induction (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008 Dec;14[12]:1356-64).
Allo-HSCT also is an option for frontline consolidation in patients with nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
He added that chemosensitive patients who have relapsed can receive allo-HSCT, but they should receive auto-HSCT only if they did not receive it in the frontline setting. Both types of transplant should take place when patients are in complete remission.
Patients with refractory, nonlocalized ENKTL, nasal type, should not receive auto-HSCT, but allo-HSCT is an option, Dr. Bazarbachi said.
Dr. Bazarbachi did not declare any conflicts of interest.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Associates, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA 2018
CDK8 inhibitor shows activity against AML
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – The (AML), but the agent’s mechanism of action is still unclear.
Researchers found that several AML cell lines were “highly sensitive” to SEL120, and the inhibitor was active in primary patient samples. SEL120 also reduced tumor growth in mouse models of AML and demonstrated synergy with venetoclax.
The researchers suggest that SEL120 works by affecting the maintenance of AML cells and leukemic stem cells (LSCs), inducing differentiation and, sometimes, apoptosis. However, the mechanism is not well defined.
Eliza Majewska, PhD, of Selvita S.A. in Krakow, Poland, discussed research on SEL120 at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Dr. Majewska explained that CDK8 is a transcriptional kinase working in the context of the Mediator complex, and previous research indicated that CDK8 drives oncogenic transcription in AML (Nature. 2015 Oct 8;526[7572]:273-6).
In a prior study, researchers found that SEL120 inhibits CDK8 activity in AML cells with high levels of STAT phosphorylation (Oncotarget. 2017 May 16;8[20]:33779-95).
Dr. Majewska said the MV4-11 cell line responds particularly well to SEL120, and other sensitive cell lines include SKNO-1, Oci-AML5, GDM-1, KG-1, MOLM-16, and Oci-AML3.
“The fact that STAT signaling was upregulated in those cell lines that were very sensitive to SEL120 gave us the hint that perhaps we are looking at a mechanism of action of the compound that has something to do with leukemic stem cells,” Dr. Majewska said.
In fact, she and her colleagues found that cell lines sensitive to SEL120 had upregulation of genes linked to LSCs and high levels of CD34 surface expression.
Experiments in CD34+ TEX cells showed that SEL120 specifically depletes CD34+ cells, leads to downregulation of stemness-related genes, and induces myeloid differentiation.
After 6 days of treatment with SEL120, TEX cells showed decreased expression of the LSC-linked genes MEIS1 and LILRB2, enrichment of gene sets downregulated in LSCs and linked to differentiation, and increased expression of differentiation markers and immune response genes.
SEL120 also demonstrated antileukemic activity in vivo. The researchers tested SEL120 in a CD34+ model of AML (KG-1) and a FLT3-ITD model of AML (MV4-11).
In both models, SEL120 induced “significant tumor regression” of about 80%. In some cases, the researchers observed apoptosis.
Toxicities observed in the mice included weight loss and upregulation of inflammation.
The researchers also found that SEL120 was synergistic with venetoclax. In fact, the combination of these drugs resulted in “almost complete remission cures” in the MV4-11 model, according to Dr. Majewska.
Finally, she and her colleagues discovered that SEL120 was active against primary patient cells. Samples from three of four patients had a significant reduction in cell numbers after 7 days of treatment with SEL120. For one patient, there were no viable cells on day 7.
Dr. Majewska said a phase 1 trial of SEL120 is planned for 2019 or 2020, and SEL120’s mechanism of action is still under investigation.
“The mechanism of action ... is, in our mind – at least in some cases – linked to the fact that CDK8 functions within the context of the Mediator complex, which contributes to gene expression related to leukemic stem cells,” Dr. Majewska said.
“And when we inhibit this specific transcription, of course, the Mediator complex still works because this is just one of the components of the complex. However, the function that it has is suddenly very different, and it’s actually linked to lack of maintenance of leukemic stem cells, resulting in differentiation [and], in some cases, the induction of apoptosis, but we do not fully understand the mechanism of this induction.”
Dr. Majewska works for Selvita, the company developing SEL120. This research was funded by Selvita, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and the National Centre for Research and Development.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – The (AML), but the agent’s mechanism of action is still unclear.
Researchers found that several AML cell lines were “highly sensitive” to SEL120, and the inhibitor was active in primary patient samples. SEL120 also reduced tumor growth in mouse models of AML and demonstrated synergy with venetoclax.
The researchers suggest that SEL120 works by affecting the maintenance of AML cells and leukemic stem cells (LSCs), inducing differentiation and, sometimes, apoptosis. However, the mechanism is not well defined.
Eliza Majewska, PhD, of Selvita S.A. in Krakow, Poland, discussed research on SEL120 at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Dr. Majewska explained that CDK8 is a transcriptional kinase working in the context of the Mediator complex, and previous research indicated that CDK8 drives oncogenic transcription in AML (Nature. 2015 Oct 8;526[7572]:273-6).
In a prior study, researchers found that SEL120 inhibits CDK8 activity in AML cells with high levels of STAT phosphorylation (Oncotarget. 2017 May 16;8[20]:33779-95).
Dr. Majewska said the MV4-11 cell line responds particularly well to SEL120, and other sensitive cell lines include SKNO-1, Oci-AML5, GDM-1, KG-1, MOLM-16, and Oci-AML3.
“The fact that STAT signaling was upregulated in those cell lines that were very sensitive to SEL120 gave us the hint that perhaps we are looking at a mechanism of action of the compound that has something to do with leukemic stem cells,” Dr. Majewska said.
In fact, she and her colleagues found that cell lines sensitive to SEL120 had upregulation of genes linked to LSCs and high levels of CD34 surface expression.
Experiments in CD34+ TEX cells showed that SEL120 specifically depletes CD34+ cells, leads to downregulation of stemness-related genes, and induces myeloid differentiation.
After 6 days of treatment with SEL120, TEX cells showed decreased expression of the LSC-linked genes MEIS1 and LILRB2, enrichment of gene sets downregulated in LSCs and linked to differentiation, and increased expression of differentiation markers and immune response genes.
SEL120 also demonstrated antileukemic activity in vivo. The researchers tested SEL120 in a CD34+ model of AML (KG-1) and a FLT3-ITD model of AML (MV4-11).
In both models, SEL120 induced “significant tumor regression” of about 80%. In some cases, the researchers observed apoptosis.
Toxicities observed in the mice included weight loss and upregulation of inflammation.
The researchers also found that SEL120 was synergistic with venetoclax. In fact, the combination of these drugs resulted in “almost complete remission cures” in the MV4-11 model, according to Dr. Majewska.
Finally, she and her colleagues discovered that SEL120 was active against primary patient cells. Samples from three of four patients had a significant reduction in cell numbers after 7 days of treatment with SEL120. For one patient, there were no viable cells on day 7.
Dr. Majewska said a phase 1 trial of SEL120 is planned for 2019 or 2020, and SEL120’s mechanism of action is still under investigation.
“The mechanism of action ... is, in our mind – at least in some cases – linked to the fact that CDK8 functions within the context of the Mediator complex, which contributes to gene expression related to leukemic stem cells,” Dr. Majewska said.
“And when we inhibit this specific transcription, of course, the Mediator complex still works because this is just one of the components of the complex. However, the function that it has is suddenly very different, and it’s actually linked to lack of maintenance of leukemic stem cells, resulting in differentiation [and], in some cases, the induction of apoptosis, but we do not fully understand the mechanism of this induction.”
Dr. Majewska works for Selvita, the company developing SEL120. This research was funded by Selvita, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and the National Centre for Research and Development.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – The (AML), but the agent’s mechanism of action is still unclear.
Researchers found that several AML cell lines were “highly sensitive” to SEL120, and the inhibitor was active in primary patient samples. SEL120 also reduced tumor growth in mouse models of AML and demonstrated synergy with venetoclax.
The researchers suggest that SEL120 works by affecting the maintenance of AML cells and leukemic stem cells (LSCs), inducing differentiation and, sometimes, apoptosis. However, the mechanism is not well defined.
Eliza Majewska, PhD, of Selvita S.A. in Krakow, Poland, discussed research on SEL120 at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Dr. Majewska explained that CDK8 is a transcriptional kinase working in the context of the Mediator complex, and previous research indicated that CDK8 drives oncogenic transcription in AML (Nature. 2015 Oct 8;526[7572]:273-6).
In a prior study, researchers found that SEL120 inhibits CDK8 activity in AML cells with high levels of STAT phosphorylation (Oncotarget. 2017 May 16;8[20]:33779-95).
Dr. Majewska said the MV4-11 cell line responds particularly well to SEL120, and other sensitive cell lines include SKNO-1, Oci-AML5, GDM-1, KG-1, MOLM-16, and Oci-AML3.
“The fact that STAT signaling was upregulated in those cell lines that were very sensitive to SEL120 gave us the hint that perhaps we are looking at a mechanism of action of the compound that has something to do with leukemic stem cells,” Dr. Majewska said.
In fact, she and her colleagues found that cell lines sensitive to SEL120 had upregulation of genes linked to LSCs and high levels of CD34 surface expression.
Experiments in CD34+ TEX cells showed that SEL120 specifically depletes CD34+ cells, leads to downregulation of stemness-related genes, and induces myeloid differentiation.
After 6 days of treatment with SEL120, TEX cells showed decreased expression of the LSC-linked genes MEIS1 and LILRB2, enrichment of gene sets downregulated in LSCs and linked to differentiation, and increased expression of differentiation markers and immune response genes.
SEL120 also demonstrated antileukemic activity in vivo. The researchers tested SEL120 in a CD34+ model of AML (KG-1) and a FLT3-ITD model of AML (MV4-11).
In both models, SEL120 induced “significant tumor regression” of about 80%. In some cases, the researchers observed apoptosis.
Toxicities observed in the mice included weight loss and upregulation of inflammation.
The researchers also found that SEL120 was synergistic with venetoclax. In fact, the combination of these drugs resulted in “almost complete remission cures” in the MV4-11 model, according to Dr. Majewska.
Finally, she and her colleagues discovered that SEL120 was active against primary patient cells. Samples from three of four patients had a significant reduction in cell numbers after 7 days of treatment with SEL120. For one patient, there were no viable cells on day 7.
Dr. Majewska said a phase 1 trial of SEL120 is planned for 2019 or 2020, and SEL120’s mechanism of action is still under investigation.
“The mechanism of action ... is, in our mind – at least in some cases – linked to the fact that CDK8 functions within the context of the Mediator complex, which contributes to gene expression related to leukemic stem cells,” Dr. Majewska said.
“And when we inhibit this specific transcription, of course, the Mediator complex still works because this is just one of the components of the complex. However, the function that it has is suddenly very different, and it’s actually linked to lack of maintenance of leukemic stem cells, resulting in differentiation [and], in some cases, the induction of apoptosis, but we do not fully understand the mechanism of this induction.”
Dr. Majewska works for Selvita, the company developing SEL120. This research was funded by Selvita, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and the National Centre for Research and Development.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA 2018
When is it CMML?
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – in 2018.
Even with updated World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, karyotyping, and genetic analyses, it can be difficult to distinguish CMML from other conditions, according to Nadira Durakovic, MD, PhD, of the University Hospital Centre Zagreb (Croatia).
However, there are characteristics that differentiate CMML from myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), and atypical chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), Dr. Durakovic said at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Studies have suggested that monocyte subset distribution analysis can be useful for diagnosing CMML.
According to the 2016 WHO classification, patients have CMML if:
- They have persistent peripheral blood monocytosis (1×109/L), with monocytes accounting for 10% of the white blood cell count.
- They do not meet WHO criteria for BCR-ABL1-positive CML, primary myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia.
- There is no evidence of PCM1-JAK2 or PDGFRA, PDGFRB, or FGFR1 rearrangement.
- They have fewer than 20% blasts in the blood and bone marrow they have dysplasia in one or more myeloid lineages.
If myelodysplasia is absent or minimal, an acquired clonal cytogenetic or molecular genetic abnormality must be present. Alternatively, if patients have monocytosis that has persisted for at least 3 months, and all other causes of monocytosis have been excluded, “you can say that your patient has CMML,” Dr. Durakovic said.
Other causes of monocytosis include infections, malignancies, medications, inflammatory conditions, and other conditions, such as pregnancy.
However, Dr. Durakovic pointed out that the cause of monocytosis cannot always be determined, and, in some cases, CMML patients may not meet the WHO criteria.
“There are cases where there just aren’t enough monocytes to fulfill the WHO criteria,” Dr. Durakovic said. “You can have a patient with peripheral blood cytopenia and monocytosis who does not have 1,000 monocytes. Patients can have progressive dysplasia, can have splenomegaly, be really sick, but fail to meet WHO criteria.”
Differential diagnosis
“Differentiating CMML from myelodysplastic syndromes can be tough,” Dr. Durakovic said. “There are dysplastic features that are present in CMML ... but, in CMML, they are more subtle, and they are more difficult to appreciate than in myelodysplastic syndromes.”
The ratio of myeloid to erythroid cells is elevated in CMML, and patients may have atypical monocytes (paramyeloid cells) that are unique to CMML.
Dr. Durakovic noted that megakaryocyte dysplasia in CMML can be characterized by “myeloproliferative megakaryocytes,” which are large cells that cluster and have hyperlobulated nuclei, or “MDS megakaryocytes,” which are small, solitary cells with hypolobulated nuclei.
She noted that “MPN phenotype” CMML is characterized by leukocytosis, monocytosis, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, and clinical features of myeloproliferation (fatigue, night sweats, bone pain, weight loss, etc.).
Thirty percent of cases are associated with splenomegaly, and 30% of patients can have an increase in bone marrow reticulin fibrosis.
Dr. Durakovic also noted that a prior MPN diagnosis excludes CMML. The presence of common MPN mutations, such as JAK2, CALR, or MPL, suggests a patient has an MPN with monocytosis rather than CMML.
Patients who have unclassified MPNs or MDS, rather than CMML, either do not have 1,000 monocytes or the monocytes do not represent more than 10% of the differential, Dr. Durakovic said.
It can also be difficult to differentiate CMML from atypical CML.
“Atypical CML is characterized by profound dysgranulopoiesis, absence of the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene, and neutrophilia,” Dr. Durakovic explained. “Those patients [commonly] have monocytosis, but, here, that 10% rule is valuable because their monocytes comprise less than 10% of the entire white blood cell count.”
Karyotyping, genotyping, and immunophenotyping
“There is no disease-defining karyotype abnormality [in CMML],” Dr. Durakovic said.
She said 30% of patients have abnormal karyotype, and the most common abnormality is trisomy 8. Unlike in patients with MDS, del(5q) and monosomal karyotypes are infrequent in patients with CMML.
Similarly, there are no “disease-defining” mutations or genetic changes in CMML, although CMML is genetically distinct from MDS, Dr. Durakovic said.
For instance, SRSF2 encodes a component of the spliceosome that is mutated in almost half of CMML patients and less than 10% of MDS patients. Likewise, ASLX1 and TET2 are “much more frequently involved” in CMML than in MDS, Dr. Durakovic said.
In a 2012 study of 275 CMML patients, researchers found that 93% of patients had at least one somatic mutation in nine recurrently mutated genes – SRFS2, ASXL1, CBL, EZH2, JAK2V617F, KRAS, NRAS, RUNX1, and TET2 (Blood. 2012;120:3080-8).
However, Dr. Durakovic noted that these mutations are found in other disorders as well, so this information may not be helpful in differentiating CMML from other disorders.
A 2015 study revealed a technique that does appear useful for identifying CMML – monocyte subset distribution analysis. For this analysis, monocytes are divided into the following categories:
- Classical/MO1 (CD14bright/CD16−).
- Intermediate/MO2 (CD14bright/CD16+).
- Nonclassical/MO3 (CD14dim/CD16+).
The researchers found that CMML patients had an increase in the fraction of classical monocytes (with a cutoff value of 94%), as compared to healthy control subjects, patients with another hematologic disorder, and patients with reactive monocytosis (Blood. 2015 Jun 4;125[23]:3618-26).
A 2018 study confirmed that monocyte subset distribution analysis could differentiate CMML from other hematologic disorders, with the exception of atypical CML. This study also suggested that a decreased percentage of non-classical monocytes was more sensitive than an increased percentage of classical monocytes (Am J Clin Pathol. 2018 Aug 30;150[4]:293-302).
Despite the differences between these studies, “monocyte subset distribution analysis is showing promise as a method of identifying hard-to-identify CMML patients with ease and affordability,” Dr. Durakovic said.
She added that the technique can be implemented in clinical practice using the Hematoflow solution.
Dr. Durakovic did not report any conflicts of interest.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – in 2018.
Even with updated World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, karyotyping, and genetic analyses, it can be difficult to distinguish CMML from other conditions, according to Nadira Durakovic, MD, PhD, of the University Hospital Centre Zagreb (Croatia).
However, there are characteristics that differentiate CMML from myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), and atypical chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), Dr. Durakovic said at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Studies have suggested that monocyte subset distribution analysis can be useful for diagnosing CMML.
According to the 2016 WHO classification, patients have CMML if:
- They have persistent peripheral blood monocytosis (1×109/L), with monocytes accounting for 10% of the white blood cell count.
- They do not meet WHO criteria for BCR-ABL1-positive CML, primary myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia.
- There is no evidence of PCM1-JAK2 or PDGFRA, PDGFRB, or FGFR1 rearrangement.
- They have fewer than 20% blasts in the blood and bone marrow they have dysplasia in one or more myeloid lineages.
If myelodysplasia is absent or minimal, an acquired clonal cytogenetic or molecular genetic abnormality must be present. Alternatively, if patients have monocytosis that has persisted for at least 3 months, and all other causes of monocytosis have been excluded, “you can say that your patient has CMML,” Dr. Durakovic said.
Other causes of monocytosis include infections, malignancies, medications, inflammatory conditions, and other conditions, such as pregnancy.
However, Dr. Durakovic pointed out that the cause of monocytosis cannot always be determined, and, in some cases, CMML patients may not meet the WHO criteria.
“There are cases where there just aren’t enough monocytes to fulfill the WHO criteria,” Dr. Durakovic said. “You can have a patient with peripheral blood cytopenia and monocytosis who does not have 1,000 monocytes. Patients can have progressive dysplasia, can have splenomegaly, be really sick, but fail to meet WHO criteria.”
Differential diagnosis
“Differentiating CMML from myelodysplastic syndromes can be tough,” Dr. Durakovic said. “There are dysplastic features that are present in CMML ... but, in CMML, they are more subtle, and they are more difficult to appreciate than in myelodysplastic syndromes.”
The ratio of myeloid to erythroid cells is elevated in CMML, and patients may have atypical monocytes (paramyeloid cells) that are unique to CMML.
Dr. Durakovic noted that megakaryocyte dysplasia in CMML can be characterized by “myeloproliferative megakaryocytes,” which are large cells that cluster and have hyperlobulated nuclei, or “MDS megakaryocytes,” which are small, solitary cells with hypolobulated nuclei.
She noted that “MPN phenotype” CMML is characterized by leukocytosis, monocytosis, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, and clinical features of myeloproliferation (fatigue, night sweats, bone pain, weight loss, etc.).
Thirty percent of cases are associated with splenomegaly, and 30% of patients can have an increase in bone marrow reticulin fibrosis.
Dr. Durakovic also noted that a prior MPN diagnosis excludes CMML. The presence of common MPN mutations, such as JAK2, CALR, or MPL, suggests a patient has an MPN with monocytosis rather than CMML.
Patients who have unclassified MPNs or MDS, rather than CMML, either do not have 1,000 monocytes or the monocytes do not represent more than 10% of the differential, Dr. Durakovic said.
It can also be difficult to differentiate CMML from atypical CML.
“Atypical CML is characterized by profound dysgranulopoiesis, absence of the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene, and neutrophilia,” Dr. Durakovic explained. “Those patients [commonly] have monocytosis, but, here, that 10% rule is valuable because their monocytes comprise less than 10% of the entire white blood cell count.”
Karyotyping, genotyping, and immunophenotyping
“There is no disease-defining karyotype abnormality [in CMML],” Dr. Durakovic said.
She said 30% of patients have abnormal karyotype, and the most common abnormality is trisomy 8. Unlike in patients with MDS, del(5q) and monosomal karyotypes are infrequent in patients with CMML.
Similarly, there are no “disease-defining” mutations or genetic changes in CMML, although CMML is genetically distinct from MDS, Dr. Durakovic said.
For instance, SRSF2 encodes a component of the spliceosome that is mutated in almost half of CMML patients and less than 10% of MDS patients. Likewise, ASLX1 and TET2 are “much more frequently involved” in CMML than in MDS, Dr. Durakovic said.
In a 2012 study of 275 CMML patients, researchers found that 93% of patients had at least one somatic mutation in nine recurrently mutated genes – SRFS2, ASXL1, CBL, EZH2, JAK2V617F, KRAS, NRAS, RUNX1, and TET2 (Blood. 2012;120:3080-8).
However, Dr. Durakovic noted that these mutations are found in other disorders as well, so this information may not be helpful in differentiating CMML from other disorders.
A 2015 study revealed a technique that does appear useful for identifying CMML – monocyte subset distribution analysis. For this analysis, monocytes are divided into the following categories:
- Classical/MO1 (CD14bright/CD16−).
- Intermediate/MO2 (CD14bright/CD16+).
- Nonclassical/MO3 (CD14dim/CD16+).
The researchers found that CMML patients had an increase in the fraction of classical monocytes (with a cutoff value of 94%), as compared to healthy control subjects, patients with another hematologic disorder, and patients with reactive monocytosis (Blood. 2015 Jun 4;125[23]:3618-26).
A 2018 study confirmed that monocyte subset distribution analysis could differentiate CMML from other hematologic disorders, with the exception of atypical CML. This study also suggested that a decreased percentage of non-classical monocytes was more sensitive than an increased percentage of classical monocytes (Am J Clin Pathol. 2018 Aug 30;150[4]:293-302).
Despite the differences between these studies, “monocyte subset distribution analysis is showing promise as a method of identifying hard-to-identify CMML patients with ease and affordability,” Dr. Durakovic said.
She added that the technique can be implemented in clinical practice using the Hematoflow solution.
Dr. Durakovic did not report any conflicts of interest.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – in 2018.
Even with updated World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, karyotyping, and genetic analyses, it can be difficult to distinguish CMML from other conditions, according to Nadira Durakovic, MD, PhD, of the University Hospital Centre Zagreb (Croatia).
However, there are characteristics that differentiate CMML from myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), and atypical chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), Dr. Durakovic said at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Studies have suggested that monocyte subset distribution analysis can be useful for diagnosing CMML.
According to the 2016 WHO classification, patients have CMML if:
- They have persistent peripheral blood monocytosis (1×109/L), with monocytes accounting for 10% of the white blood cell count.
- They do not meet WHO criteria for BCR-ABL1-positive CML, primary myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, or essential thrombocythemia.
- There is no evidence of PCM1-JAK2 or PDGFRA, PDGFRB, or FGFR1 rearrangement.
- They have fewer than 20% blasts in the blood and bone marrow they have dysplasia in one or more myeloid lineages.
If myelodysplasia is absent or minimal, an acquired clonal cytogenetic or molecular genetic abnormality must be present. Alternatively, if patients have monocytosis that has persisted for at least 3 months, and all other causes of monocytosis have been excluded, “you can say that your patient has CMML,” Dr. Durakovic said.
Other causes of monocytosis include infections, malignancies, medications, inflammatory conditions, and other conditions, such as pregnancy.
However, Dr. Durakovic pointed out that the cause of monocytosis cannot always be determined, and, in some cases, CMML patients may not meet the WHO criteria.
“There are cases where there just aren’t enough monocytes to fulfill the WHO criteria,” Dr. Durakovic said. “You can have a patient with peripheral blood cytopenia and monocytosis who does not have 1,000 monocytes. Patients can have progressive dysplasia, can have splenomegaly, be really sick, but fail to meet WHO criteria.”
Differential diagnosis
“Differentiating CMML from myelodysplastic syndromes can be tough,” Dr. Durakovic said. “There are dysplastic features that are present in CMML ... but, in CMML, they are more subtle, and they are more difficult to appreciate than in myelodysplastic syndromes.”
The ratio of myeloid to erythroid cells is elevated in CMML, and patients may have atypical monocytes (paramyeloid cells) that are unique to CMML.
Dr. Durakovic noted that megakaryocyte dysplasia in CMML can be characterized by “myeloproliferative megakaryocytes,” which are large cells that cluster and have hyperlobulated nuclei, or “MDS megakaryocytes,” which are small, solitary cells with hypolobulated nuclei.
She noted that “MPN phenotype” CMML is characterized by leukocytosis, monocytosis, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, and clinical features of myeloproliferation (fatigue, night sweats, bone pain, weight loss, etc.).
Thirty percent of cases are associated with splenomegaly, and 30% of patients can have an increase in bone marrow reticulin fibrosis.
Dr. Durakovic also noted that a prior MPN diagnosis excludes CMML. The presence of common MPN mutations, such as JAK2, CALR, or MPL, suggests a patient has an MPN with monocytosis rather than CMML.
Patients who have unclassified MPNs or MDS, rather than CMML, either do not have 1,000 monocytes or the monocytes do not represent more than 10% of the differential, Dr. Durakovic said.
It can also be difficult to differentiate CMML from atypical CML.
“Atypical CML is characterized by profound dysgranulopoiesis, absence of the BCR-ABL1 fusion gene, and neutrophilia,” Dr. Durakovic explained. “Those patients [commonly] have monocytosis, but, here, that 10% rule is valuable because their monocytes comprise less than 10% of the entire white blood cell count.”
Karyotyping, genotyping, and immunophenotyping
“There is no disease-defining karyotype abnormality [in CMML],” Dr. Durakovic said.
She said 30% of patients have abnormal karyotype, and the most common abnormality is trisomy 8. Unlike in patients with MDS, del(5q) and monosomal karyotypes are infrequent in patients with CMML.
Similarly, there are no “disease-defining” mutations or genetic changes in CMML, although CMML is genetically distinct from MDS, Dr. Durakovic said.
For instance, SRSF2 encodes a component of the spliceosome that is mutated in almost half of CMML patients and less than 10% of MDS patients. Likewise, ASLX1 and TET2 are “much more frequently involved” in CMML than in MDS, Dr. Durakovic said.
In a 2012 study of 275 CMML patients, researchers found that 93% of patients had at least one somatic mutation in nine recurrently mutated genes – SRFS2, ASXL1, CBL, EZH2, JAK2V617F, KRAS, NRAS, RUNX1, and TET2 (Blood. 2012;120:3080-8).
However, Dr. Durakovic noted that these mutations are found in other disorders as well, so this information may not be helpful in differentiating CMML from other disorders.
A 2015 study revealed a technique that does appear useful for identifying CMML – monocyte subset distribution analysis. For this analysis, monocytes are divided into the following categories:
- Classical/MO1 (CD14bright/CD16−).
- Intermediate/MO2 (CD14bright/CD16+).
- Nonclassical/MO3 (CD14dim/CD16+).
The researchers found that CMML patients had an increase in the fraction of classical monocytes (with a cutoff value of 94%), as compared to healthy control subjects, patients with another hematologic disorder, and patients with reactive monocytosis (Blood. 2015 Jun 4;125[23]:3618-26).
A 2018 study confirmed that monocyte subset distribution analysis could differentiate CMML from other hematologic disorders, with the exception of atypical CML. This study also suggested that a decreased percentage of non-classical monocytes was more sensitive than an increased percentage of classical monocytes (Am J Clin Pathol. 2018 Aug 30;150[4]:293-302).
Despite the differences between these studies, “monocyte subset distribution analysis is showing promise as a method of identifying hard-to-identify CMML patients with ease and affordability,” Dr. Durakovic said.
She added that the technique can be implemented in clinical practice using the Hematoflow solution.
Dr. Durakovic did not report any conflicts of interest.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA 2018
Optimizing use of TKIs in chronic leukemia
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – Long-term efficacy and toxicity should inform decisions about tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), according to one expert.
Studies have indicated that long-term survival rates are similar whether CML patients receive frontline treatment with imatinib or second-generation TKIs. But the newer TKIs pose a higher risk of uncommon toxicities, Hagop M. Kantarjian, MD, said during the keynote presentation at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Dr. Kantarjian, a professor at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said most CML patients should receive daily treatment with TKIs – even if they are in complete cytogenetic response or 100% Philadelphia chromosome positive – because they will live longer.
Frontline treatment options for CML that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration include imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, and bosutinib.
Dr. Kantarjian noted that dasatinib and nilotinib bested imatinib in early analyses from clinical trials, but all three TKIs produced similar rates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) at extended follow-up.
Dasatinib and imatinib produced similar rates of 5-year OS and PFS in the DASISION trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34[20]:2333-40).
In ENESTnd, 5-year OS and PFS rates were similar with nilotinib and imatinib (Leukemia. 2016 May;30[5]:1044-54).
However, the higher incidence of uncommon toxicities with the newer TKIs must be taken into account, Dr. Kantarjian said.
Choosing a TKI
Dr. Kantarjian recommends frontline imatinib for older patients (aged 65-70) and those who are low risk based on their Sokal score.
Second-generation TKIs should be given up front to patients who are at higher risk by Sokal and for “very young patients in whom early treatment discontinuation is important,” he said.
“In accelerated or blast phase, I always use the second-generation TKIs,” he said. “If there’s no binding mutation, I prefer dasatinib. I think it’s the most potent of them. If there are toxicities with dasatinib, bosutinib is equivalent in efficacy, so they are interchangeable.”
A TKI should not be discarded unless there is loss of complete cytogenetic response – not major molecular response – at the maximum tolerated adjusted dose that does not cause grade 3-4 toxicities or chronic grade 2 toxicities, Dr. Kantarjian added.
“We have to remember that we can go down on the dosages of, for example, imatinib, down to 200 mg a day, dasatinib as low as 20 mg a day, nilotinib as low as 150 mg twice a day or even 200 mg daily, and bosutinib down to 200 mg daily,” he said. “So if we have a patient who’s responding with side effects, we should not abandon the particular TKI, we should try to manipulate the dose schedule if they are having a good response.”
Dr. Kantarjian noted that pleural effusion is a toxicity of particular concern with dasatinib, but lowering the dose to 50 mg daily results in similar efficacy and significantly less toxicity than 100 mg daily. For patients over the age of 70, a 20-mg dose can be used.
Vaso-occlusive and vasospastic reactions are increasingly observed in patients treated with nilotinib. For that reason, Dr. Kantarjian said he prefers to forgo up-front nilotinib, particularly in patients who have cardiovascular or neurotoxic problems.
“The incidence of vaso-occlusive and vasospastic reactions is now close to 10%-15% at about 10 years with nilotinib,” Dr. Kantarjian said. “So it is not a trivial toxicity.”
For patients with vaso-occlusive/vasospastic reactions, “bosutinib is probably the safest drug,” Dr. Kantarjian said.
For second- or third-line therapy, patients can receive ponatinib or a second-generation TKI (dasatinib, nilotinib, or bosutinib), as well as omacetaxine or allogeneic stem cell transplant.
“If you disregard toxicities, I think ponatinib is the most powerful TKI, and I think that’s because we are using it at a higher dose that produces so many toxicities,” Dr. Kantarjian said.
Ponatinib is not used up front because of these toxicities, particularly pancreatitis, skin rashes, vaso-occlusive disorders, and hypertension, he added.
Dr. Kantarjian suggests giving ponatinib at 30 mg daily in patients with T315I mutation and those without guiding mutations who are resistant to second-generation TKIs.
Discontinuing a TKI
Dr. Kantarjian said patients can discontinue TKI therapy if they:
- Are low- or intermediate-risk by Sokal.
- Have quantifiable BCR-ABL transcripts.
- Are in chronic phase.
- Achieved an optimal response to their first TKI.
- Have been on TKI therapy for more than 8 years.
- Achieved a complete molecular response.
- Have had a molecular response for more than 2-3 years.
- Are available for monitoring every other month for the first 2 years.
Dr. Kantarjian did not report any conflicts of interest at the meeting. However, he has previously reported relationships with Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – Long-term efficacy and toxicity should inform decisions about tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), according to one expert.
Studies have indicated that long-term survival rates are similar whether CML patients receive frontline treatment with imatinib or second-generation TKIs. But the newer TKIs pose a higher risk of uncommon toxicities, Hagop M. Kantarjian, MD, said during the keynote presentation at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Dr. Kantarjian, a professor at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said most CML patients should receive daily treatment with TKIs – even if they are in complete cytogenetic response or 100% Philadelphia chromosome positive – because they will live longer.
Frontline treatment options for CML that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration include imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, and bosutinib.
Dr. Kantarjian noted that dasatinib and nilotinib bested imatinib in early analyses from clinical trials, but all three TKIs produced similar rates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) at extended follow-up.
Dasatinib and imatinib produced similar rates of 5-year OS and PFS in the DASISION trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34[20]:2333-40).
In ENESTnd, 5-year OS and PFS rates were similar with nilotinib and imatinib (Leukemia. 2016 May;30[5]:1044-54).
However, the higher incidence of uncommon toxicities with the newer TKIs must be taken into account, Dr. Kantarjian said.
Choosing a TKI
Dr. Kantarjian recommends frontline imatinib for older patients (aged 65-70) and those who are low risk based on their Sokal score.
Second-generation TKIs should be given up front to patients who are at higher risk by Sokal and for “very young patients in whom early treatment discontinuation is important,” he said.
“In accelerated or blast phase, I always use the second-generation TKIs,” he said. “If there’s no binding mutation, I prefer dasatinib. I think it’s the most potent of them. If there are toxicities with dasatinib, bosutinib is equivalent in efficacy, so they are interchangeable.”
A TKI should not be discarded unless there is loss of complete cytogenetic response – not major molecular response – at the maximum tolerated adjusted dose that does not cause grade 3-4 toxicities or chronic grade 2 toxicities, Dr. Kantarjian added.
“We have to remember that we can go down on the dosages of, for example, imatinib, down to 200 mg a day, dasatinib as low as 20 mg a day, nilotinib as low as 150 mg twice a day or even 200 mg daily, and bosutinib down to 200 mg daily,” he said. “So if we have a patient who’s responding with side effects, we should not abandon the particular TKI, we should try to manipulate the dose schedule if they are having a good response.”
Dr. Kantarjian noted that pleural effusion is a toxicity of particular concern with dasatinib, but lowering the dose to 50 mg daily results in similar efficacy and significantly less toxicity than 100 mg daily. For patients over the age of 70, a 20-mg dose can be used.
Vaso-occlusive and vasospastic reactions are increasingly observed in patients treated with nilotinib. For that reason, Dr. Kantarjian said he prefers to forgo up-front nilotinib, particularly in patients who have cardiovascular or neurotoxic problems.
“The incidence of vaso-occlusive and vasospastic reactions is now close to 10%-15% at about 10 years with nilotinib,” Dr. Kantarjian said. “So it is not a trivial toxicity.”
For patients with vaso-occlusive/vasospastic reactions, “bosutinib is probably the safest drug,” Dr. Kantarjian said.
For second- or third-line therapy, patients can receive ponatinib or a second-generation TKI (dasatinib, nilotinib, or bosutinib), as well as omacetaxine or allogeneic stem cell transplant.
“If you disregard toxicities, I think ponatinib is the most powerful TKI, and I think that’s because we are using it at a higher dose that produces so many toxicities,” Dr. Kantarjian said.
Ponatinib is not used up front because of these toxicities, particularly pancreatitis, skin rashes, vaso-occlusive disorders, and hypertension, he added.
Dr. Kantarjian suggests giving ponatinib at 30 mg daily in patients with T315I mutation and those without guiding mutations who are resistant to second-generation TKIs.
Discontinuing a TKI
Dr. Kantarjian said patients can discontinue TKI therapy if they:
- Are low- or intermediate-risk by Sokal.
- Have quantifiable BCR-ABL transcripts.
- Are in chronic phase.
- Achieved an optimal response to their first TKI.
- Have been on TKI therapy for more than 8 years.
- Achieved a complete molecular response.
- Have had a molecular response for more than 2-3 years.
- Are available for monitoring every other month for the first 2 years.
Dr. Kantarjian did not report any conflicts of interest at the meeting. However, he has previously reported relationships with Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – Long-term efficacy and toxicity should inform decisions about tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), according to one expert.
Studies have indicated that long-term survival rates are similar whether CML patients receive frontline treatment with imatinib or second-generation TKIs. But the newer TKIs pose a higher risk of uncommon toxicities, Hagop M. Kantarjian, MD, said during the keynote presentation at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Dr. Kantarjian, a professor at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said most CML patients should receive daily treatment with TKIs – even if they are in complete cytogenetic response or 100% Philadelphia chromosome positive – because they will live longer.
Frontline treatment options for CML that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration include imatinib, dasatinib, nilotinib, and bosutinib.
Dr. Kantarjian noted that dasatinib and nilotinib bested imatinib in early analyses from clinical trials, but all three TKIs produced similar rates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) at extended follow-up.
Dasatinib and imatinib produced similar rates of 5-year OS and PFS in the DASISION trial (J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jul 10;34[20]:2333-40).
In ENESTnd, 5-year OS and PFS rates were similar with nilotinib and imatinib (Leukemia. 2016 May;30[5]:1044-54).
However, the higher incidence of uncommon toxicities with the newer TKIs must be taken into account, Dr. Kantarjian said.
Choosing a TKI
Dr. Kantarjian recommends frontline imatinib for older patients (aged 65-70) and those who are low risk based on their Sokal score.
Second-generation TKIs should be given up front to patients who are at higher risk by Sokal and for “very young patients in whom early treatment discontinuation is important,” he said.
“In accelerated or blast phase, I always use the second-generation TKIs,” he said. “If there’s no binding mutation, I prefer dasatinib. I think it’s the most potent of them. If there are toxicities with dasatinib, bosutinib is equivalent in efficacy, so they are interchangeable.”
A TKI should not be discarded unless there is loss of complete cytogenetic response – not major molecular response – at the maximum tolerated adjusted dose that does not cause grade 3-4 toxicities or chronic grade 2 toxicities, Dr. Kantarjian added.
“We have to remember that we can go down on the dosages of, for example, imatinib, down to 200 mg a day, dasatinib as low as 20 mg a day, nilotinib as low as 150 mg twice a day or even 200 mg daily, and bosutinib down to 200 mg daily,” he said. “So if we have a patient who’s responding with side effects, we should not abandon the particular TKI, we should try to manipulate the dose schedule if they are having a good response.”
Dr. Kantarjian noted that pleural effusion is a toxicity of particular concern with dasatinib, but lowering the dose to 50 mg daily results in similar efficacy and significantly less toxicity than 100 mg daily. For patients over the age of 70, a 20-mg dose can be used.
Vaso-occlusive and vasospastic reactions are increasingly observed in patients treated with nilotinib. For that reason, Dr. Kantarjian said he prefers to forgo up-front nilotinib, particularly in patients who have cardiovascular or neurotoxic problems.
“The incidence of vaso-occlusive and vasospastic reactions is now close to 10%-15% at about 10 years with nilotinib,” Dr. Kantarjian said. “So it is not a trivial toxicity.”
For patients with vaso-occlusive/vasospastic reactions, “bosutinib is probably the safest drug,” Dr. Kantarjian said.
For second- or third-line therapy, patients can receive ponatinib or a second-generation TKI (dasatinib, nilotinib, or bosutinib), as well as omacetaxine or allogeneic stem cell transplant.
“If you disregard toxicities, I think ponatinib is the most powerful TKI, and I think that’s because we are using it at a higher dose that produces so many toxicities,” Dr. Kantarjian said.
Ponatinib is not used up front because of these toxicities, particularly pancreatitis, skin rashes, vaso-occlusive disorders, and hypertension, he added.
Dr. Kantarjian suggests giving ponatinib at 30 mg daily in patients with T315I mutation and those without guiding mutations who are resistant to second-generation TKIs.
Discontinuing a TKI
Dr. Kantarjian said patients can discontinue TKI therapy if they:
- Are low- or intermediate-risk by Sokal.
- Have quantifiable BCR-ABL transcripts.
- Are in chronic phase.
- Achieved an optimal response to their first TKI.
- Have been on TKI therapy for more than 8 years.
- Achieved a complete molecular response.
- Have had a molecular response for more than 2-3 years.
- Are available for monitoring every other month for the first 2 years.
Dr. Kantarjian did not report any conflicts of interest at the meeting. However, he has previously reported relationships with Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Ariad Pharmaceuticals.
The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
REPORTING FROM LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA 2018
Updated ThroLy system predicts need for thromboprophylaxis
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – An updated scoring system can more accurately identify lymphoma patients who may require thromboprophylaxis, according to researchers.
The revised scoring system, ThroLy, proved more effective than other systems for predicting thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients, with a positive predictive value of 22%-25%, a negative predictive value of 96%, sensitivity of 56%-57%, and specificity of 85%-87%.
Darko Antic, MD, PhD, of the University of Belgrade in Serbia, presented these findings at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Dr. Antic said that he and his colleagues developed ThroLy because other systems used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) are not quite right for lymphoma. He noted that the Padua score is not designed for cancer patients and the Khorana score is predominantly used for solid tumor malignancies.
The ThroLy scoring system is based on variables used in the Padua and Khorana systems, as well as variables that are specific to lymphoma patients.
In a previous study, the researchers found several variables that were independently associated with risk for VTE in lymphoma, including previous VTE, previous acute MI or stroke, mediastinal involvement, high body mass index, reduced mobility, extranodal localization, neutropenia, and hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (Am J Hematol. 2016 Oct;91[10]:1014-9).
In an initial version of the ThroLy scoring system, previous VTE, previous acute MI/stroke, obesity, and mediastinal involvement were all worth two points, and the other factors were worth a single point in the ThroLy system.
Patients with scores of 0 to 1 were considered low risk, patients with scores of 2 to 3 were considered intermediate risk, and patients with scores of 4 or greater were considered high risk.
To validate and refine ThroLy, Dr. Antic and his colleagues used it to assess 1,723 lymphoma patients treated at eight institutions in Austria, Croatia, France, Jordan, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.
Patients had indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma. Most subjects (84%) were outpatients. A total of 9%of patients had thrombosis, with 7% having VTE.
ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 17%, compared with 11% with Khorana and 13% with Padua. The negative predictive value was 93%, 92%, and 95%, respectively. The sensitivity was 51% with ThroLy, 42% with Khorana, and 70% with Padua; specificity was 72%, 64%, and 52%, respectively.
“The positive predictive value was low [with ThroLy] but definitely higher than the positive predictive value of the other two [scoring systems],” Dr. Antic noted.
Updated models
To further improve ThroLy, the researchers updated the system, creating two new models. Model 1 included the type of lymphoma/clinical stage (1 point), previous VTE (5 points), reduced mobility (2 points), hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (1 point), and the presence of vascular devices (1 point). Model 2 included all of the variables in Model 1 plus the thrombophilic condition, which was worth 1 point.
Patients were considered low risk if they scored 2 points or lower and high risk if they scored more than 2 points.
For Model 1, the positive predictive value was 22%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 56%, and the specificity was 85%. For Model 2, the positive predictive value was 25%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 57%, and the specificity was 87%.
There were no major differences in model discrimination and calibration based on the country in which a patient was treated or whether the patient was treated in an inpatient or outpatient setting.
Dr. Antic did not report any conflicts of interest. The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – An updated scoring system can more accurately identify lymphoma patients who may require thromboprophylaxis, according to researchers.
The revised scoring system, ThroLy, proved more effective than other systems for predicting thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients, with a positive predictive value of 22%-25%, a negative predictive value of 96%, sensitivity of 56%-57%, and specificity of 85%-87%.
Darko Antic, MD, PhD, of the University of Belgrade in Serbia, presented these findings at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Dr. Antic said that he and his colleagues developed ThroLy because other systems used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) are not quite right for lymphoma. He noted that the Padua score is not designed for cancer patients and the Khorana score is predominantly used for solid tumor malignancies.
The ThroLy scoring system is based on variables used in the Padua and Khorana systems, as well as variables that are specific to lymphoma patients.
In a previous study, the researchers found several variables that were independently associated with risk for VTE in lymphoma, including previous VTE, previous acute MI or stroke, mediastinal involvement, high body mass index, reduced mobility, extranodal localization, neutropenia, and hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (Am J Hematol. 2016 Oct;91[10]:1014-9).
In an initial version of the ThroLy scoring system, previous VTE, previous acute MI/stroke, obesity, and mediastinal involvement were all worth two points, and the other factors were worth a single point in the ThroLy system.
Patients with scores of 0 to 1 were considered low risk, patients with scores of 2 to 3 were considered intermediate risk, and patients with scores of 4 or greater were considered high risk.
To validate and refine ThroLy, Dr. Antic and his colleagues used it to assess 1,723 lymphoma patients treated at eight institutions in Austria, Croatia, France, Jordan, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.
Patients had indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma. Most subjects (84%) were outpatients. A total of 9%of patients had thrombosis, with 7% having VTE.
ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 17%, compared with 11% with Khorana and 13% with Padua. The negative predictive value was 93%, 92%, and 95%, respectively. The sensitivity was 51% with ThroLy, 42% with Khorana, and 70% with Padua; specificity was 72%, 64%, and 52%, respectively.
“The positive predictive value was low [with ThroLy] but definitely higher than the positive predictive value of the other two [scoring systems],” Dr. Antic noted.
Updated models
To further improve ThroLy, the researchers updated the system, creating two new models. Model 1 included the type of lymphoma/clinical stage (1 point), previous VTE (5 points), reduced mobility (2 points), hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (1 point), and the presence of vascular devices (1 point). Model 2 included all of the variables in Model 1 plus the thrombophilic condition, which was worth 1 point.
Patients were considered low risk if they scored 2 points or lower and high risk if they scored more than 2 points.
For Model 1, the positive predictive value was 22%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 56%, and the specificity was 85%. For Model 2, the positive predictive value was 25%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 57%, and the specificity was 87%.
There were no major differences in model discrimination and calibration based on the country in which a patient was treated or whether the patient was treated in an inpatient or outpatient setting.
Dr. Antic did not report any conflicts of interest. The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
DUBROVNIK, CROATIA – An updated scoring system can more accurately identify lymphoma patients who may require thromboprophylaxis, according to researchers.
The revised scoring system, ThroLy, proved more effective than other systems for predicting thromboembolic events in lymphoma patients, with a positive predictive value of 22%-25%, a negative predictive value of 96%, sensitivity of 56%-57%, and specificity of 85%-87%.
Darko Antic, MD, PhD, of the University of Belgrade in Serbia, presented these findings at Leukemia and Lymphoma, a meeting jointly sponsored by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and the School of Medicine at the University of Zagreb, Croatia.
Dr. Antic said that he and his colleagues developed ThroLy because other systems used to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) are not quite right for lymphoma. He noted that the Padua score is not designed for cancer patients and the Khorana score is predominantly used for solid tumor malignancies.
The ThroLy scoring system is based on variables used in the Padua and Khorana systems, as well as variables that are specific to lymphoma patients.
In a previous study, the researchers found several variables that were independently associated with risk for VTE in lymphoma, including previous VTE, previous acute MI or stroke, mediastinal involvement, high body mass index, reduced mobility, extranodal localization, neutropenia, and hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (Am J Hematol. 2016 Oct;91[10]:1014-9).
In an initial version of the ThroLy scoring system, previous VTE, previous acute MI/stroke, obesity, and mediastinal involvement were all worth two points, and the other factors were worth a single point in the ThroLy system.
Patients with scores of 0 to 1 were considered low risk, patients with scores of 2 to 3 were considered intermediate risk, and patients with scores of 4 or greater were considered high risk.
To validate and refine ThroLy, Dr. Antic and his colleagues used it to assess 1,723 lymphoma patients treated at eight institutions in Austria, Croatia, France, Jordan, Macedonia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.
Patients had indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, and Hodgkin lymphoma. Most subjects (84%) were outpatients. A total of 9%of patients had thrombosis, with 7% having VTE.
ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 17%, compared with 11% with Khorana and 13% with Padua. The negative predictive value was 93%, 92%, and 95%, respectively. The sensitivity was 51% with ThroLy, 42% with Khorana, and 70% with Padua; specificity was 72%, 64%, and 52%, respectively.
“The positive predictive value was low [with ThroLy] but definitely higher than the positive predictive value of the other two [scoring systems],” Dr. Antic noted.
Updated models
To further improve ThroLy, the researchers updated the system, creating two new models. Model 1 included the type of lymphoma/clinical stage (1 point), previous VTE (5 points), reduced mobility (2 points), hemoglobin less than 100 g/L (1 point), and the presence of vascular devices (1 point). Model 2 included all of the variables in Model 1 plus the thrombophilic condition, which was worth 1 point.
Patients were considered low risk if they scored 2 points or lower and high risk if they scored more than 2 points.
For Model 1, the positive predictive value was 22%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 56%, and the specificity was 85%. For Model 2, the positive predictive value was 25%, the negative predictive value was 96%, the sensitivity was 57%, and the specificity was 87%.
There were no major differences in model discrimination and calibration based on the country in which a patient was treated or whether the patient was treated in an inpatient or outpatient setting.
Dr. Antic did not report any conflicts of interest. The Leukemia and Lymphoma meeting is organized by Jonathan Wood & Association, which is owned by the parent company of this news organization.
REPORTING FROM LEUKEMIA AND LYMPHOMA 2018
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The updated ThroLy had a positive predictive value of 22%-25%, a negative predictive value of 96%, sensitivity of 56%-57%, and specificity of 85%-87%.
Study details: The scoring system was validated on 1,723 lymphoma patients treated at eight institutions worldwide.
Disclosures: Dr. Antic reported having no conflicts of interest.