User login
Debate: Should smoldering myeloma be treated?
Hematologist Sagar Lonial, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist and researcher at Emory University, Atlanta, argued for treatment. Hematologist Angela Dispenzieri, MD, also a myeloma researcher and specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the opposing side, arguing for watchful waiting.
The two experts based their arguments largely on the same two studies, the only randomized trials to tackle the issue to date. While Dr. Dispenzieri focused on their shortcomings, Dr. Lonial focused on their strengths.
In a poll after the debate, about a third of audience members agreed that watchful waiting is the way to go, but about two-thirds favored a personalized approach to smoldering myeloma treatment based on patient risk.
“I’m taking this as a win,” Dr. Lonial said.
Different interpretations of two trials
The first of the two trials recruited from 2007 to 2010 and was conducted in Spain and Portugal. Fifty-seven high-risk patients were randomized to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Len-Dex) for up to 2 years; 62 others were randomized to observation.
At 3 years, 70% of observed patients had progressed to multiple myeloma versus only 20% in the Len-Dex group; 82% of Len-Dex patients were alive at data cut-off in 2015 versus 64% of observation patients.
The second, more recent trial, which was led by Dr. Lonial, randomized 92 intermediate or high-risk smoldering myeloma patients to lenalidomide alone for a median of 2 years and 90 others to observation. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in the treatment arm versus 66% with observation. Overall survival data have not yet been reported.
Dr. Dispenzieri acknowledged that the results from Spain and Portugal are impressive. “Treating with Len-Dex gives you a far superior freedom from progression. ... Overall survival was better too.” Results for Len-Dex were “fantastic,” she said.
However, the trial was done before myeloma-defining event criteria existed, so it’s very likely that the treatment arm in the Spanish study included actual myeloma cases, she said.
About 46% of treated patients in Dr. Lonial’s study met the current definition for high risk for progression based on the 2-20-20 rule, which Dr. Dispenzieri helped develop. Although there was an improvement in PFS in the high-risk group, there was no significant improvement for intermediate- and low-risk subjects. Also, more than 80% of observed patients hadn’t progressed by 2 years, and overall survival data are missing.
Meanwhile, treated patients in both trials had more adverse events, including secondary malignancies, and there’s the possibility that early treatment may make patients resistant to treatment later on when they progress to multiple myeloma, although that didn’t seem to happen in the Spanish trial.
“Of course, we want to prevent morbidity, of course we would love to cure the disease,” but “should we treat high-risk smoldering myeloma patients based on overall survival data from a trial of” just 119 “patients that may have been contaminated with actual myeloma” cases? Is it ethical to treat low- and intermediate-risk patients who have only a 50% chance of developing myeloma after 10 years?”
Her answer to both questions was “no and no. ... There’s just a lot of work to be done” to better understand the condition and when and how to intervene. In the meantime, “don’t treat smoldering melanoma patients” outside of a trial, she said.
“First, do no harm,” Dr. Dispenzieri cautioned in her final slide.
Dr. Lonial said he agreed with many of Dr. Dispenzieri’s points, but disagreed with her conclusion not to treat.
“Everybody can always be critical of randomized trials, but at the end of the day, we now have two randomized phase 3 trials comparing early intervention with no intervention demonstrating a significant delay in developing myeloma. I think it’s time to end the ‘we need more data; we need more trials.’ It’s time for us to take a stand.”
He argued for 2 years of lenalidomide for patients who meet the 2-20-20 high-risk definition, based on the median time people were treated in his trial.
He said he discusses the option “with every smoldering patient [who] walks in to see me” if they aren’t eligible for a trial.
Dr. Lonial mentioned his team is currently pulling together longer-term survival data for their trial.
Hematologist Sagar Lonial, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist and researcher at Emory University, Atlanta, argued for treatment. Hematologist Angela Dispenzieri, MD, also a myeloma researcher and specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the opposing side, arguing for watchful waiting.
The two experts based their arguments largely on the same two studies, the only randomized trials to tackle the issue to date. While Dr. Dispenzieri focused on their shortcomings, Dr. Lonial focused on their strengths.
In a poll after the debate, about a third of audience members agreed that watchful waiting is the way to go, but about two-thirds favored a personalized approach to smoldering myeloma treatment based on patient risk.
“I’m taking this as a win,” Dr. Lonial said.
Different interpretations of two trials
The first of the two trials recruited from 2007 to 2010 and was conducted in Spain and Portugal. Fifty-seven high-risk patients were randomized to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Len-Dex) for up to 2 years; 62 others were randomized to observation.
At 3 years, 70% of observed patients had progressed to multiple myeloma versus only 20% in the Len-Dex group; 82% of Len-Dex patients were alive at data cut-off in 2015 versus 64% of observation patients.
The second, more recent trial, which was led by Dr. Lonial, randomized 92 intermediate or high-risk smoldering myeloma patients to lenalidomide alone for a median of 2 years and 90 others to observation. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in the treatment arm versus 66% with observation. Overall survival data have not yet been reported.
Dr. Dispenzieri acknowledged that the results from Spain and Portugal are impressive. “Treating with Len-Dex gives you a far superior freedom from progression. ... Overall survival was better too.” Results for Len-Dex were “fantastic,” she said.
However, the trial was done before myeloma-defining event criteria existed, so it’s very likely that the treatment arm in the Spanish study included actual myeloma cases, she said.
About 46% of treated patients in Dr. Lonial’s study met the current definition for high risk for progression based on the 2-20-20 rule, which Dr. Dispenzieri helped develop. Although there was an improvement in PFS in the high-risk group, there was no significant improvement for intermediate- and low-risk subjects. Also, more than 80% of observed patients hadn’t progressed by 2 years, and overall survival data are missing.
Meanwhile, treated patients in both trials had more adverse events, including secondary malignancies, and there’s the possibility that early treatment may make patients resistant to treatment later on when they progress to multiple myeloma, although that didn’t seem to happen in the Spanish trial.
“Of course, we want to prevent morbidity, of course we would love to cure the disease,” but “should we treat high-risk smoldering myeloma patients based on overall survival data from a trial of” just 119 “patients that may have been contaminated with actual myeloma” cases? Is it ethical to treat low- and intermediate-risk patients who have only a 50% chance of developing myeloma after 10 years?”
Her answer to both questions was “no and no. ... There’s just a lot of work to be done” to better understand the condition and when and how to intervene. In the meantime, “don’t treat smoldering melanoma patients” outside of a trial, she said.
“First, do no harm,” Dr. Dispenzieri cautioned in her final slide.
Dr. Lonial said he agreed with many of Dr. Dispenzieri’s points, but disagreed with her conclusion not to treat.
“Everybody can always be critical of randomized trials, but at the end of the day, we now have two randomized phase 3 trials comparing early intervention with no intervention demonstrating a significant delay in developing myeloma. I think it’s time to end the ‘we need more data; we need more trials.’ It’s time for us to take a stand.”
He argued for 2 years of lenalidomide for patients who meet the 2-20-20 high-risk definition, based on the median time people were treated in his trial.
He said he discusses the option “with every smoldering patient [who] walks in to see me” if they aren’t eligible for a trial.
Dr. Lonial mentioned his team is currently pulling together longer-term survival data for their trial.
Hematologist Sagar Lonial, MD, a multiple myeloma specialist and researcher at Emory University, Atlanta, argued for treatment. Hematologist Angela Dispenzieri, MD, also a myeloma researcher and specialist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., took the opposing side, arguing for watchful waiting.
The two experts based their arguments largely on the same two studies, the only randomized trials to tackle the issue to date. While Dr. Dispenzieri focused on their shortcomings, Dr. Lonial focused on their strengths.
In a poll after the debate, about a third of audience members agreed that watchful waiting is the way to go, but about two-thirds favored a personalized approach to smoldering myeloma treatment based on patient risk.
“I’m taking this as a win,” Dr. Lonial said.
Different interpretations of two trials
The first of the two trials recruited from 2007 to 2010 and was conducted in Spain and Portugal. Fifty-seven high-risk patients were randomized to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Len-Dex) for up to 2 years; 62 others were randomized to observation.
At 3 years, 70% of observed patients had progressed to multiple myeloma versus only 20% in the Len-Dex group; 82% of Len-Dex patients were alive at data cut-off in 2015 versus 64% of observation patients.
The second, more recent trial, which was led by Dr. Lonial, randomized 92 intermediate or high-risk smoldering myeloma patients to lenalidomide alone for a median of 2 years and 90 others to observation. Three-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 91% in the treatment arm versus 66% with observation. Overall survival data have not yet been reported.
Dr. Dispenzieri acknowledged that the results from Spain and Portugal are impressive. “Treating with Len-Dex gives you a far superior freedom from progression. ... Overall survival was better too.” Results for Len-Dex were “fantastic,” she said.
However, the trial was done before myeloma-defining event criteria existed, so it’s very likely that the treatment arm in the Spanish study included actual myeloma cases, she said.
About 46% of treated patients in Dr. Lonial’s study met the current definition for high risk for progression based on the 2-20-20 rule, which Dr. Dispenzieri helped develop. Although there was an improvement in PFS in the high-risk group, there was no significant improvement for intermediate- and low-risk subjects. Also, more than 80% of observed patients hadn’t progressed by 2 years, and overall survival data are missing.
Meanwhile, treated patients in both trials had more adverse events, including secondary malignancies, and there’s the possibility that early treatment may make patients resistant to treatment later on when they progress to multiple myeloma, although that didn’t seem to happen in the Spanish trial.
“Of course, we want to prevent morbidity, of course we would love to cure the disease,” but “should we treat high-risk smoldering myeloma patients based on overall survival data from a trial of” just 119 “patients that may have been contaminated with actual myeloma” cases? Is it ethical to treat low- and intermediate-risk patients who have only a 50% chance of developing myeloma after 10 years?”
Her answer to both questions was “no and no. ... There’s just a lot of work to be done” to better understand the condition and when and how to intervene. In the meantime, “don’t treat smoldering melanoma patients” outside of a trial, she said.
“First, do no harm,” Dr. Dispenzieri cautioned in her final slide.
Dr. Lonial said he agreed with many of Dr. Dispenzieri’s points, but disagreed with her conclusion not to treat.
“Everybody can always be critical of randomized trials, but at the end of the day, we now have two randomized phase 3 trials comparing early intervention with no intervention demonstrating a significant delay in developing myeloma. I think it’s time to end the ‘we need more data; we need more trials.’ It’s time for us to take a stand.”
He argued for 2 years of lenalidomide for patients who meet the 2-20-20 high-risk definition, based on the median time people were treated in his trial.
He said he discusses the option “with every smoldering patient [who] walks in to see me” if they aren’t eligible for a trial.
Dr. Lonial mentioned his team is currently pulling together longer-term survival data for their trial.
FROM SOHO 2023
Safely skip PET2 after brentuximab in Hodgkin lymphoma?
FROM SOHO 2023
Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.
These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.
Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.
However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.
Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.
In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.
In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.
Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.
During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.
Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”
In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SOHO 2023
Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.
These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.
Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.
However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.
Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.
In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.
In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.
Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.
During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.
Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”
In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SOHO 2023
Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.
These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.
Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.
However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.
Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.
In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.
In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.
Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.
Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.
During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.
Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”
In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.
The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Is additional treatment needed, pretransplant, for r/r AML?
This critically important question was debated at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology, held in Houston and online.
Johannes Schetelig, MD, argued in favor of proceeding to transplant, even without a complete remission.
“In the past, I’ve told many patients with relapsed or refractory AML that we do need to induce a [complete remission] prior to transplantation,” said Dr. Schetelig, from the Clinical Trials Unit at DKMS in Dresden, Germany. “But is it true?”
According to findings from a recent randomized trial, it may not be. The trial, led by Dr. Schetelig, found that patients with AML who received immediate allogeneic transplant without first having achieved a complete response following induction therapy did just as well as those who received intensive salvage induction therapy to establish remission before transplant.
If this finding holds, it “completely upends” how experts have traditionally approached patients with AML, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the University of Miami said at a conference press briefing last year.
The phase 3 ASAP trial, presented at last year’s American Society of Hematology meeting, included patients with AML who had had a poor response or who had experienced a relapse after first induction therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to a remission-induction strategy prior to allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloHCT) or a disease-control approach of watchful waiting followed by sequential conditioning and alloHCT. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as a complete response at day 56 following alloHCT.
In an intention-to-treat analysis, 83.5% of patients in the disease-control group and 81% in the remission-induction group achieved treatment success. Similarly, in the per-protocol analysis, 84.1% and 81.3%, respectively, achieved a complete response at day 56 after alloHCT. After a median follow-up of 4 years, there were no differences in leukemia-free survival or overall survival between the two groups.
Another advantage to forgoing an intensive salvage induction regimen: Patients in the disease-control arm experienced significantly fewer severe adverse events (23% vs. 64% in the remission induction arm) and spent a mean of 27 fewer days in the hospital prior to transplantation.
At last year’s press briefing, Dr. Schetelig said his team did not expect that a complete response on day 56 after transplantation would translate into “equal long-term benefit” for these groups. “This is what I was really astonished about,” he said.
Delving further into the findings, Dr. Schetelig explained that in the remission-induction arm patients who had had a complete response prior to transplantation demonstrated significantly better overall survival at 4 years than those who had not had a complete response at that point: 60% vs. 40%.
The study also revealed that in the disease-control arm, for patients under watchful waiting who did not need low-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone for disease control, overall survival outcomes were similar to those of patients in the remission-induction arm who achieved a complete response.
These findings suggest that patients who can be bridged with watchful waiting may have a more favorable disease biology, and chemosensitivity could just be a biomarker for disease biology. In other words, “AML biology matters for transplant outcome and not tumor load,” Dr. Schetelig explained.
A recent study that found that having minimal residual disease (MRD) prior to transplant “had no independent effect on leukemia-free survival” supports this idea, he added.
Overall, Dr. Schetelig concluded that data from the ASAP trial suggest that watchful waiting prior to alloHCT represents “an alternative” for some patients.
Counterpoint: Aim for complete remission
Ronald B. Walter, MD, PhD, argued the counterpoint: that residual disease before transplantation is associated with worse posttransplant outcomes and represents a meaningful pretransplant therapeutic target.
The goal of intensifying treatment for patients with residual disease is to erase disease vestiges prior to transplantation.
“The idea is that by doing so you might optimize the benefit-to-risk ratio and ultimately improve outcomes,” said Dr. Walter, of the translational science and therapeutics division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Several reports support this view that patients who are MRD negative at the time of transplant have significantly better survival outcomes than patients with residual disease who undergo transplant.
A 2016 study from Dr. Walter and colleagues at Fred Hutchinson, for instance, found that 3-year overall survival was significantly higher among patients with no MRD who underwent myeloablative alloHCT: 73% vs. 26% of those in MRD-positive morphologic remission and 23% of patients with active AML.
Another study, published the year before by a different research team, also revealed that “adult patients with AML in morphologic [complete remission] but with detectable MRD who undergo alloHCT have poor outcomes, which approximates those who undergo transplantation with active disease,” the authors of the 2015 study wrote in a commentary highlighting findings from both studies.
Still, providing intensive therapy prior to transplant comes with drawbacks, Dr. Walter noted. These downsides include potential toxicity from more intense therapy, which may prevent further therapy with curative intent, as well as the possibility that deintensifying therapy could lead to difficult-to-treat relapse.
It may, however, be possible to reduce the intensity of therapy before transplant and still achieve good outcomes after transplant, though the data remain mixed.
One trial found that a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen was associated with a greater risk of relapse post transplant and worse overall survival, compared with standard myeloablative conditioning.
However, another recent trial in which patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome were randomly assigned to either a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen or an intensified version of that regimen prior to transplant demonstrated no difference in relapse rates and overall survival, regardless of patients’ MRD status prior to transplant.
“To me, it’s still key to go into transplant with as little disease as possible,” Dr. Walter said. How much value there is in targeted treatment to further reduce disease burden prior to transplant “will really require further careful study,” he said.
The ASAP trial was sponsored by DKMS. Dr. Schetelig has received honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and DKMS. Dr. Walter reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This critically important question was debated at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology, held in Houston and online.
Johannes Schetelig, MD, argued in favor of proceeding to transplant, even without a complete remission.
“In the past, I’ve told many patients with relapsed or refractory AML that we do need to induce a [complete remission] prior to transplantation,” said Dr. Schetelig, from the Clinical Trials Unit at DKMS in Dresden, Germany. “But is it true?”
According to findings from a recent randomized trial, it may not be. The trial, led by Dr. Schetelig, found that patients with AML who received immediate allogeneic transplant without first having achieved a complete response following induction therapy did just as well as those who received intensive salvage induction therapy to establish remission before transplant.
If this finding holds, it “completely upends” how experts have traditionally approached patients with AML, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the University of Miami said at a conference press briefing last year.
The phase 3 ASAP trial, presented at last year’s American Society of Hematology meeting, included patients with AML who had had a poor response or who had experienced a relapse after first induction therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to a remission-induction strategy prior to allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloHCT) or a disease-control approach of watchful waiting followed by sequential conditioning and alloHCT. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as a complete response at day 56 following alloHCT.
In an intention-to-treat analysis, 83.5% of patients in the disease-control group and 81% in the remission-induction group achieved treatment success. Similarly, in the per-protocol analysis, 84.1% and 81.3%, respectively, achieved a complete response at day 56 after alloHCT. After a median follow-up of 4 years, there were no differences in leukemia-free survival or overall survival between the two groups.
Another advantage to forgoing an intensive salvage induction regimen: Patients in the disease-control arm experienced significantly fewer severe adverse events (23% vs. 64% in the remission induction arm) and spent a mean of 27 fewer days in the hospital prior to transplantation.
At last year’s press briefing, Dr. Schetelig said his team did not expect that a complete response on day 56 after transplantation would translate into “equal long-term benefit” for these groups. “This is what I was really astonished about,” he said.
Delving further into the findings, Dr. Schetelig explained that in the remission-induction arm patients who had had a complete response prior to transplantation demonstrated significantly better overall survival at 4 years than those who had not had a complete response at that point: 60% vs. 40%.
The study also revealed that in the disease-control arm, for patients under watchful waiting who did not need low-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone for disease control, overall survival outcomes were similar to those of patients in the remission-induction arm who achieved a complete response.
These findings suggest that patients who can be bridged with watchful waiting may have a more favorable disease biology, and chemosensitivity could just be a biomarker for disease biology. In other words, “AML biology matters for transplant outcome and not tumor load,” Dr. Schetelig explained.
A recent study that found that having minimal residual disease (MRD) prior to transplant “had no independent effect on leukemia-free survival” supports this idea, he added.
Overall, Dr. Schetelig concluded that data from the ASAP trial suggest that watchful waiting prior to alloHCT represents “an alternative” for some patients.
Counterpoint: Aim for complete remission
Ronald B. Walter, MD, PhD, argued the counterpoint: that residual disease before transplantation is associated with worse posttransplant outcomes and represents a meaningful pretransplant therapeutic target.
The goal of intensifying treatment for patients with residual disease is to erase disease vestiges prior to transplantation.
“The idea is that by doing so you might optimize the benefit-to-risk ratio and ultimately improve outcomes,” said Dr. Walter, of the translational science and therapeutics division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Several reports support this view that patients who are MRD negative at the time of transplant have significantly better survival outcomes than patients with residual disease who undergo transplant.
A 2016 study from Dr. Walter and colleagues at Fred Hutchinson, for instance, found that 3-year overall survival was significantly higher among patients with no MRD who underwent myeloablative alloHCT: 73% vs. 26% of those in MRD-positive morphologic remission and 23% of patients with active AML.
Another study, published the year before by a different research team, also revealed that “adult patients with AML in morphologic [complete remission] but with detectable MRD who undergo alloHCT have poor outcomes, which approximates those who undergo transplantation with active disease,” the authors of the 2015 study wrote in a commentary highlighting findings from both studies.
Still, providing intensive therapy prior to transplant comes with drawbacks, Dr. Walter noted. These downsides include potential toxicity from more intense therapy, which may prevent further therapy with curative intent, as well as the possibility that deintensifying therapy could lead to difficult-to-treat relapse.
It may, however, be possible to reduce the intensity of therapy before transplant and still achieve good outcomes after transplant, though the data remain mixed.
One trial found that a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen was associated with a greater risk of relapse post transplant and worse overall survival, compared with standard myeloablative conditioning.
However, another recent trial in which patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome were randomly assigned to either a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen or an intensified version of that regimen prior to transplant demonstrated no difference in relapse rates and overall survival, regardless of patients’ MRD status prior to transplant.
“To me, it’s still key to go into transplant with as little disease as possible,” Dr. Walter said. How much value there is in targeted treatment to further reduce disease burden prior to transplant “will really require further careful study,” he said.
The ASAP trial was sponsored by DKMS. Dr. Schetelig has received honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and DKMS. Dr. Walter reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
This critically important question was debated at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology, held in Houston and online.
Johannes Schetelig, MD, argued in favor of proceeding to transplant, even without a complete remission.
“In the past, I’ve told many patients with relapsed or refractory AML that we do need to induce a [complete remission] prior to transplantation,” said Dr. Schetelig, from the Clinical Trials Unit at DKMS in Dresden, Germany. “But is it true?”
According to findings from a recent randomized trial, it may not be. The trial, led by Dr. Schetelig, found that patients with AML who received immediate allogeneic transplant without first having achieved a complete response following induction therapy did just as well as those who received intensive salvage induction therapy to establish remission before transplant.
If this finding holds, it “completely upends” how experts have traditionally approached patients with AML, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the University of Miami said at a conference press briefing last year.
The phase 3 ASAP trial, presented at last year’s American Society of Hematology meeting, included patients with AML who had had a poor response or who had experienced a relapse after first induction therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to a remission-induction strategy prior to allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloHCT) or a disease-control approach of watchful waiting followed by sequential conditioning and alloHCT. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as a complete response at day 56 following alloHCT.
In an intention-to-treat analysis, 83.5% of patients in the disease-control group and 81% in the remission-induction group achieved treatment success. Similarly, in the per-protocol analysis, 84.1% and 81.3%, respectively, achieved a complete response at day 56 after alloHCT. After a median follow-up of 4 years, there were no differences in leukemia-free survival or overall survival between the two groups.
Another advantage to forgoing an intensive salvage induction regimen: Patients in the disease-control arm experienced significantly fewer severe adverse events (23% vs. 64% in the remission induction arm) and spent a mean of 27 fewer days in the hospital prior to transplantation.
At last year’s press briefing, Dr. Schetelig said his team did not expect that a complete response on day 56 after transplantation would translate into “equal long-term benefit” for these groups. “This is what I was really astonished about,” he said.
Delving further into the findings, Dr. Schetelig explained that in the remission-induction arm patients who had had a complete response prior to transplantation demonstrated significantly better overall survival at 4 years than those who had not had a complete response at that point: 60% vs. 40%.
The study also revealed that in the disease-control arm, for patients under watchful waiting who did not need low-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone for disease control, overall survival outcomes were similar to those of patients in the remission-induction arm who achieved a complete response.
These findings suggest that patients who can be bridged with watchful waiting may have a more favorable disease biology, and chemosensitivity could just be a biomarker for disease biology. In other words, “AML biology matters for transplant outcome and not tumor load,” Dr. Schetelig explained.
A recent study that found that having minimal residual disease (MRD) prior to transplant “had no independent effect on leukemia-free survival” supports this idea, he added.
Overall, Dr. Schetelig concluded that data from the ASAP trial suggest that watchful waiting prior to alloHCT represents “an alternative” for some patients.
Counterpoint: Aim for complete remission
Ronald B. Walter, MD, PhD, argued the counterpoint: that residual disease before transplantation is associated with worse posttransplant outcomes and represents a meaningful pretransplant therapeutic target.
The goal of intensifying treatment for patients with residual disease is to erase disease vestiges prior to transplantation.
“The idea is that by doing so you might optimize the benefit-to-risk ratio and ultimately improve outcomes,” said Dr. Walter, of the translational science and therapeutics division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.
Several reports support this view that patients who are MRD negative at the time of transplant have significantly better survival outcomes than patients with residual disease who undergo transplant.
A 2016 study from Dr. Walter and colleagues at Fred Hutchinson, for instance, found that 3-year overall survival was significantly higher among patients with no MRD who underwent myeloablative alloHCT: 73% vs. 26% of those in MRD-positive morphologic remission and 23% of patients with active AML.
Another study, published the year before by a different research team, also revealed that “adult patients with AML in morphologic [complete remission] but with detectable MRD who undergo alloHCT have poor outcomes, which approximates those who undergo transplantation with active disease,” the authors of the 2015 study wrote in a commentary highlighting findings from both studies.
Still, providing intensive therapy prior to transplant comes with drawbacks, Dr. Walter noted. These downsides include potential toxicity from more intense therapy, which may prevent further therapy with curative intent, as well as the possibility that deintensifying therapy could lead to difficult-to-treat relapse.
It may, however, be possible to reduce the intensity of therapy before transplant and still achieve good outcomes after transplant, though the data remain mixed.
One trial found that a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen was associated with a greater risk of relapse post transplant and worse overall survival, compared with standard myeloablative conditioning.
However, another recent trial in which patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome were randomly assigned to either a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen or an intensified version of that regimen prior to transplant demonstrated no difference in relapse rates and overall survival, regardless of patients’ MRD status prior to transplant.
“To me, it’s still key to go into transplant with as little disease as possible,” Dr. Walter said. How much value there is in targeted treatment to further reduce disease burden prior to transplant “will really require further careful study,” he said.
The ASAP trial was sponsored by DKMS. Dr. Schetelig has received honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and DKMS. Dr. Walter reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SOHO 2023
Using JAK inhibitors for myelofibrosis
“We are thankfully starting to be blessed with more options than we’ve ever had,” he said, but “in the front-line proliferative setting, ruxolitinib has remained the standard of care.” It’s “well established in higher-risk patients and very much an option for very symptomatic lower-risk patients.”
Dr. Hunter helped his colleagues navigate the evolving field of JAK inhibition for myelofibrosis in a presentation titled “Choosing and Properly Using a JAK Inhibitor in Myelofibrosis,”at the Society of Hematologic Oncology annual meeting.
Ruxolitinib was the first JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis on the U.S. market, approved in 2011. Two more have followed, fedratinib in 2019 and pacritinib in 2022.
A fourth JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis, momelotinib, is under Food and Drug Administration review with a decision expected shortly.
JAK inhibitors disrupt a key pathogenic pathway in myelofibrosis and are a mainstay of treatment, but Dr. Hunter noted that they should not replace allogeneic transplants in patients who are candidates because transplants remain “the best way to achieve long term survival, especially in higher risk patients.”
He noted that not every patient needs a JAK inhibitor, especially “lower-risk, more asymptomatic patients who are predominantly manifesting with cytopenias. [They] are less likely to benefit.”
Dr. Hunter said that although ruxolitinib remains a treatment of choice, fedratinib “is certainly an option” with comparable rates of symptom control and splenomegaly reduction. Also, while ruxolitinib is dosed according to platelet levels, fedratinib allows for full dosing down to a platelet count of 50 x 109/L.
“But there’s more GI toxicity than with ruxolitinib, especially in the first couple of months,” he said, as well as a black box warning of Wernicke’s encephalopathy. “I generally put all my [fedratinib] patients on thiamine repletion as a precaution.”
One of the most challenging aspects of using JAK inhibitors for myelofibrosis is their tendency to cause cytopenia, particularly anemia and thrombocytopenia, which, ironically, are also hallmarks of myelofibrosis itself.
Although there’s an alternative low-dose ruxolitinib regimen that can be effective in anemic settings, the approval of pacritinib and most likely momelotinib is particularly helpful for cytopenic patients, “a population which historically has been very hard to treat with our prior agents,” Dr. Hunter said.
Pacritinib is approved specifically for patients with platelet counts below 50 x 109/L; momelotinib also included lower platelet counts in several studies. Both agents indirectly boost erythropoiesis with subsequent amelioration of anemia.
“Momelotinib is an important emerging agent for these more anemic patients,” with a spleen response comparable to ruxolitinib and significantly higher rates of transfusion independence, but with lower rates of symptom control, Dr. Hunter said.
Pacritinib “really helps extend the benefit of JAK inhibitors to a group of thrombocytopenic patients who have been hard to treat with ruxolitinib,” with the added potential of improving anemia, although, like fedratinib, it has more GI toxicity, he said.
There are multiple add-on options for JAK inhibitor patients with anemia, including luspatercept, an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent approved for anemia in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes; promising results were reported recently for myelofibrosis.
Fedratinib, pacritinib, and momelotinib all have activity in the second line after ruxolitinib failure, Dr. Hunter noted, but he cautioned that ruxolitinib must be tapered over a few weeks, not stopped abruptly, to avoid withdrawal symptoms. Some clinicians overlap JAK inhibitors a day or two to avoid issues.
“Clinical trials should still be considered in many of these settings,” he said, adding that emerging agents are under development, including multiple combination therapies, often with JAK inhibitors as the background.
No disclosure information was reported.
“We are thankfully starting to be blessed with more options than we’ve ever had,” he said, but “in the front-line proliferative setting, ruxolitinib has remained the standard of care.” It’s “well established in higher-risk patients and very much an option for very symptomatic lower-risk patients.”
Dr. Hunter helped his colleagues navigate the evolving field of JAK inhibition for myelofibrosis in a presentation titled “Choosing and Properly Using a JAK Inhibitor in Myelofibrosis,”at the Society of Hematologic Oncology annual meeting.
Ruxolitinib was the first JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis on the U.S. market, approved in 2011. Two more have followed, fedratinib in 2019 and pacritinib in 2022.
A fourth JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis, momelotinib, is under Food and Drug Administration review with a decision expected shortly.
JAK inhibitors disrupt a key pathogenic pathway in myelofibrosis and are a mainstay of treatment, but Dr. Hunter noted that they should not replace allogeneic transplants in patients who are candidates because transplants remain “the best way to achieve long term survival, especially in higher risk patients.”
He noted that not every patient needs a JAK inhibitor, especially “lower-risk, more asymptomatic patients who are predominantly manifesting with cytopenias. [They] are less likely to benefit.”
Dr. Hunter said that although ruxolitinib remains a treatment of choice, fedratinib “is certainly an option” with comparable rates of symptom control and splenomegaly reduction. Also, while ruxolitinib is dosed according to platelet levels, fedratinib allows for full dosing down to a platelet count of 50 x 109/L.
“But there’s more GI toxicity than with ruxolitinib, especially in the first couple of months,” he said, as well as a black box warning of Wernicke’s encephalopathy. “I generally put all my [fedratinib] patients on thiamine repletion as a precaution.”
One of the most challenging aspects of using JAK inhibitors for myelofibrosis is their tendency to cause cytopenia, particularly anemia and thrombocytopenia, which, ironically, are also hallmarks of myelofibrosis itself.
Although there’s an alternative low-dose ruxolitinib regimen that can be effective in anemic settings, the approval of pacritinib and most likely momelotinib is particularly helpful for cytopenic patients, “a population which historically has been very hard to treat with our prior agents,” Dr. Hunter said.
Pacritinib is approved specifically for patients with platelet counts below 50 x 109/L; momelotinib also included lower platelet counts in several studies. Both agents indirectly boost erythropoiesis with subsequent amelioration of anemia.
“Momelotinib is an important emerging agent for these more anemic patients,” with a spleen response comparable to ruxolitinib and significantly higher rates of transfusion independence, but with lower rates of symptom control, Dr. Hunter said.
Pacritinib “really helps extend the benefit of JAK inhibitors to a group of thrombocytopenic patients who have been hard to treat with ruxolitinib,” with the added potential of improving anemia, although, like fedratinib, it has more GI toxicity, he said.
There are multiple add-on options for JAK inhibitor patients with anemia, including luspatercept, an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent approved for anemia in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes; promising results were reported recently for myelofibrosis.
Fedratinib, pacritinib, and momelotinib all have activity in the second line after ruxolitinib failure, Dr. Hunter noted, but he cautioned that ruxolitinib must be tapered over a few weeks, not stopped abruptly, to avoid withdrawal symptoms. Some clinicians overlap JAK inhibitors a day or two to avoid issues.
“Clinical trials should still be considered in many of these settings,” he said, adding that emerging agents are under development, including multiple combination therapies, often with JAK inhibitors as the background.
No disclosure information was reported.
“We are thankfully starting to be blessed with more options than we’ve ever had,” he said, but “in the front-line proliferative setting, ruxolitinib has remained the standard of care.” It’s “well established in higher-risk patients and very much an option for very symptomatic lower-risk patients.”
Dr. Hunter helped his colleagues navigate the evolving field of JAK inhibition for myelofibrosis in a presentation titled “Choosing and Properly Using a JAK Inhibitor in Myelofibrosis,”at the Society of Hematologic Oncology annual meeting.
Ruxolitinib was the first JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis on the U.S. market, approved in 2011. Two more have followed, fedratinib in 2019 and pacritinib in 2022.
A fourth JAK inhibitor for myelofibrosis, momelotinib, is under Food and Drug Administration review with a decision expected shortly.
JAK inhibitors disrupt a key pathogenic pathway in myelofibrosis and are a mainstay of treatment, but Dr. Hunter noted that they should not replace allogeneic transplants in patients who are candidates because transplants remain “the best way to achieve long term survival, especially in higher risk patients.”
He noted that not every patient needs a JAK inhibitor, especially “lower-risk, more asymptomatic patients who are predominantly manifesting with cytopenias. [They] are less likely to benefit.”
Dr. Hunter said that although ruxolitinib remains a treatment of choice, fedratinib “is certainly an option” with comparable rates of symptom control and splenomegaly reduction. Also, while ruxolitinib is dosed according to platelet levels, fedratinib allows for full dosing down to a platelet count of 50 x 109/L.
“But there’s more GI toxicity than with ruxolitinib, especially in the first couple of months,” he said, as well as a black box warning of Wernicke’s encephalopathy. “I generally put all my [fedratinib] patients on thiamine repletion as a precaution.”
One of the most challenging aspects of using JAK inhibitors for myelofibrosis is their tendency to cause cytopenia, particularly anemia and thrombocytopenia, which, ironically, are also hallmarks of myelofibrosis itself.
Although there’s an alternative low-dose ruxolitinib regimen that can be effective in anemic settings, the approval of pacritinib and most likely momelotinib is particularly helpful for cytopenic patients, “a population which historically has been very hard to treat with our prior agents,” Dr. Hunter said.
Pacritinib is approved specifically for patients with platelet counts below 50 x 109/L; momelotinib also included lower platelet counts in several studies. Both agents indirectly boost erythropoiesis with subsequent amelioration of anemia.
“Momelotinib is an important emerging agent for these more anemic patients,” with a spleen response comparable to ruxolitinib and significantly higher rates of transfusion independence, but with lower rates of symptom control, Dr. Hunter said.
Pacritinib “really helps extend the benefit of JAK inhibitors to a group of thrombocytopenic patients who have been hard to treat with ruxolitinib,” with the added potential of improving anemia, although, like fedratinib, it has more GI toxicity, he said.
There are multiple add-on options for JAK inhibitor patients with anemia, including luspatercept, an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent approved for anemia in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes; promising results were reported recently for myelofibrosis.
Fedratinib, pacritinib, and momelotinib all have activity in the second line after ruxolitinib failure, Dr. Hunter noted, but he cautioned that ruxolitinib must be tapered over a few weeks, not stopped abruptly, to avoid withdrawal symptoms. Some clinicians overlap JAK inhibitors a day or two to avoid issues.
“Clinical trials should still be considered in many of these settings,” he said, adding that emerging agents are under development, including multiple combination therapies, often with JAK inhibitors as the background.
No disclosure information was reported.
FROM SOHO 2023
CHP/CCUS: Low blood cancer risk for most patients
The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.
CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.
CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.
A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.
With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.
Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.
Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.
The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.
“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.
High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.
The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.
“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.
“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.
The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.
The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.
CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.
CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.
A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.
With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.
Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.
Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.
The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.
“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.
High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.
The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.
“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.
“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.
The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.
The reason is that patients will inevitably “go online and see that [the conditions are] associated with lots of bad things; it can really cause patients psychosocial harm if there is no one to explain what their risk is and also provide risk-specific management,” Dr. Weeks said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.
CHIP and CCUS are precursors of myeloid malignancies but for most patients, the risk of progression is less than 1%. CHIPS and CCUS are also associated with cardiovascular, rheumatologic, hepatic, and other diseases.
CHIP is defined by somatic mutations in myeloid malignancy driver genes with a variant allele fraction of 2% or more; CCUS is when those molecular features are accompanied by an unexplained and persistent anemia, thrombocytopenia, or neutropenia.
A small 2017 study suggested that about a third of patients with otherwise unexplained cytopenias have CCUS.
With the increasing use of next generation sequencing for tissue and liquid biopsies and other uses, the incidental diagnosis of both conditions is increasing.
Fortunately, Dr. Weeks’ group recently published a tool for predicting the risk of progression to myeloid malignancy.
Their “clonal hematopoiesis risk score” (CHRS) was developed and validated in over 400,000 healthy volunteers in the UK Biobank, with additional validation in cohorts from Dana Farber and the University of Pavia, Italy.
The CHRS incorporates eight high-risk genetic and clinical prognostic factors, including the type and number of genetic mutations in blood cells, factors related to red blood cell volume, and age over 65. It’s available online.
“You just input the patient’s information and it spits out if the patient is low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to any myeloid malignancy,” Dr. Weeks told her audience.
High-risk patients have about a 50% 10-year cumulative incidence of myeloid malignancy. The large majority of patients are low risk, however, and have a 10-year cumulative incidence of less than 1%. Patients in the middle have a 10-year risk of about 8%.
The low-risk group “is the population of people who probably don’t need to see a specialist,” and can be followed with an annual CBC with their primary care doctors plus further workup with any clinical change. Patients should also be evaluated for cardiovascular and other comorbidity risks.
“It’s the high-risk group we worry most about,” Dr. Weeks said. “We see them more often and repeat the next-generation sequencing” annually with a CBC at least every 6 months and a bone marrow biopsy with any clinical change.
“This is the population we would shuttle towards a clinical trial, as this is the population most likely to benefit,” she said.
The overarching goal of the several ongoing studies in CHIP/CCUS is to find a way to prevent progression to blood cancer. They range from prospective cohorts and single arm pilot studies to randomized clinical trials. One trial is evaluating canakinumab to prevent progression. “Intervention in clonal hematopoiesis might have the dual benefit of both preventing hematologic malignancy as well as reducing [the] inflammatory comorbidities,” Dr. Weeks said.
FROM SOHO 2023