Mantle Cell Lymphoma

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca) for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) after at least two lines of systemic therapy, including a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Pirtobrutinib is the first and only noncovalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for use in this MCL setting, manufacturer Eli Lilly noted in a press release.

“The approval of Jaypirca represents an important advance for patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, who currently have limited options and historically have had a poor prognosis following discontinuation of treatment with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor,” senior author Michael Wang, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in the release.

The approval was based on efficacy demonstrated in the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN trial – a multicenter study assessing 200 mg once-daily oral pirtobrutinib monotherapy in 120 patients with MCL who had previously received a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, most often ibrutinib (Imbruvica, 67%) acalabrutinib (Calquence, 30%) and zanubrutinib (Brukinsa, 8%). Pirtobrutinib was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Study participants had a median of three prior lines of therapy, and 83% discontinued their last Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor because of refractory or progressive disease.

The overall response rate in pirtobrutinib-treated patients was 50% with a complete response rate of 13%. Estimated median duration of response was 8.3 months, and the estimated duration of response at 6 months occurred in nearly two-thirds of patients.

Adverse reactions that occurred in at least 15% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, edema, dyspnea, pneumonia, and bruising. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, and platelet counts.

Prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings and precautions for infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and second primary malignancies, noted the FDA, which granted priority review, fast track designation, and orphan drug designation for the application submitted by Eli Lilly.

“Jaypirca can reestablish Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibition in MCL patients previously treated with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or zanubrutinib) and extend the benefit of targeting the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase pathway,” according to Eli Lilly’s release.

Dr. Wang added that the agent “has the potential to meaningfully impact the treatment paradigm for relapsed and refractory MCL patients.”

Meghan Gutierrez, CEO at the Lymphoma Research Foundation, also noted that “the approval of Jaypirca brings a new treatment option and, along with that, new hope for people with relapsed or refractory MCL.”

The drug is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, and the confirmatory phase 3 BRUIN trial is currently enrolling patients, Eli Lilly announced. The company also indicated the list price would be $21,000 for a 30-day supply of the 200-mg dose.

Serious adverse events believed to be associated with the use of pirtobrutinib or any medicine or device should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca) for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) after at least two lines of systemic therapy, including a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Pirtobrutinib is the first and only noncovalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for use in this MCL setting, manufacturer Eli Lilly noted in a press release.

“The approval of Jaypirca represents an important advance for patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, who currently have limited options and historically have had a poor prognosis following discontinuation of treatment with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor,” senior author Michael Wang, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in the release.

The approval was based on efficacy demonstrated in the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN trial – a multicenter study assessing 200 mg once-daily oral pirtobrutinib monotherapy in 120 patients with MCL who had previously received a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, most often ibrutinib (Imbruvica, 67%) acalabrutinib (Calquence, 30%) and zanubrutinib (Brukinsa, 8%). Pirtobrutinib was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Study participants had a median of three prior lines of therapy, and 83% discontinued their last Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor because of refractory or progressive disease.

The overall response rate in pirtobrutinib-treated patients was 50% with a complete response rate of 13%. Estimated median duration of response was 8.3 months, and the estimated duration of response at 6 months occurred in nearly two-thirds of patients.

Adverse reactions that occurred in at least 15% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, edema, dyspnea, pneumonia, and bruising. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, and platelet counts.

Prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings and precautions for infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and second primary malignancies, noted the FDA, which granted priority review, fast track designation, and orphan drug designation for the application submitted by Eli Lilly.

“Jaypirca can reestablish Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibition in MCL patients previously treated with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or zanubrutinib) and extend the benefit of targeting the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase pathway,” according to Eli Lilly’s release.

Dr. Wang added that the agent “has the potential to meaningfully impact the treatment paradigm for relapsed and refractory MCL patients.”

Meghan Gutierrez, CEO at the Lymphoma Research Foundation, also noted that “the approval of Jaypirca brings a new treatment option and, along with that, new hope for people with relapsed or refractory MCL.”

The drug is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, and the confirmatory phase 3 BRUIN trial is currently enrolling patients, Eli Lilly announced. The company also indicated the list price would be $21,000 for a 30-day supply of the 200-mg dose.

Serious adverse events believed to be associated with the use of pirtobrutinib or any medicine or device should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval to pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca) for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) after at least two lines of systemic therapy, including a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Pirtobrutinib is the first and only noncovalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for use in this MCL setting, manufacturer Eli Lilly noted in a press release.

“The approval of Jaypirca represents an important advance for patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, who currently have limited options and historically have had a poor prognosis following discontinuation of treatment with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor,” senior author Michael Wang, MD, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, said in the release.

The approval was based on efficacy demonstrated in the open-label, single-arm, phase 1/2 BRUIN trial – a multicenter study assessing 200 mg once-daily oral pirtobrutinib monotherapy in 120 patients with MCL who had previously received a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, most often ibrutinib (Imbruvica, 67%) acalabrutinib (Calquence, 30%) and zanubrutinib (Brukinsa, 8%). Pirtobrutinib was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Study participants had a median of three prior lines of therapy, and 83% discontinued their last Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor because of refractory or progressive disease.

The overall response rate in pirtobrutinib-treated patients was 50% with a complete response rate of 13%. Estimated median duration of response was 8.3 months, and the estimated duration of response at 6 months occurred in nearly two-thirds of patients.

Adverse reactions that occurred in at least 15% of patients included fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, diarrhea, edema, dyspnea, pneumonia, and bruising. Grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities occurring in at least 10% of patients included decreased neutrophil counts, lymphocyte counts, and platelet counts.

Prescribing information for pirtobrutinib includes warnings and precautions for infections, hemorrhage, cytopenias, atrial fibrillation and flutter, and second primary malignancies, noted the FDA, which granted priority review, fast track designation, and orphan drug designation for the application submitted by Eli Lilly.

“Jaypirca can reestablish Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibition in MCL patients previously treated with a covalent Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or zanubrutinib) and extend the benefit of targeting the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase pathway,” according to Eli Lilly’s release.

Dr. Wang added that the agent “has the potential to meaningfully impact the treatment paradigm for relapsed and refractory MCL patients.”

Meghan Gutierrez, CEO at the Lymphoma Research Foundation, also noted that “the approval of Jaypirca brings a new treatment option and, along with that, new hope for people with relapsed or refractory MCL.”

The drug is expected to be available in the United States in the coming weeks, and the confirmatory phase 3 BRUIN trial is currently enrolling patients, Eli Lilly announced. The company also indicated the list price would be $21,000 for a 30-day supply of the 200-mg dose.

Serious adverse events believed to be associated with the use of pirtobrutinib or any medicine or device should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch Reporting System or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

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

What were the most exciting mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) updates from the recent meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH)?

Dr. Martin: The 2022 ASH meeting reported mostly about MCL research, which is great for the MCL community, because clearly, there is a lot of room for improvement. One of the big trials presented at a plenary session—one which we have been eager to see the results from, but maybe did not expect to see quite so soon—was the European MCL Network TRIANGLE trial. This is a 3-arm trial in which 870 patients were randomized. They had treatment-naive MCL and were younger than 66 years, so they were eligible for more intensive chemotherapy.

Arm A was the standard-of-care arm, defined by the prior European MCL Network TRIANGLE Trial. This was 6 alternating cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin hydrochloride [doxorubicin hydrochloride], vincristine, and prednisone) and R-DHAP (rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin) – 3 of each followed by autologous stem cell transplant. Arm B was the same regimen with the addition of the first-in-class Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib to induction followed by 2 years of ibrutinib maintenance. Arm C was the same induction regimen (6 alternating cycles of R-CHOP and R-DHAP plus ibrutinib during induction and maintenance) with no autologous stem cell transplant. Roughly half the patients in the trial, all equally distributed across all arms, received 3 years of maintenance rituximab.

The primary outcome was failure-free survival (FFS). After only 31 months of median follow-up, the trial reported a significant difference in FFS between patients receiving ibrutinib (Arms B and C) and patients who underwent autologous stem cell transplant and did not receive ibrutinib (Arm A).

This clearly shows that 2 years of ibrutinib maintenance significantly improves FFS. FFS was 88% versus 72% (Arm B vs Arm A) at 3 years with a hazard ratio of 0.5. That is a striking hazard ratio, highly statistically significant. Importantly, patients in Arms B and C fared similarly, suggesting that transplant was unnecessary in patients receiving ibrutinib.

What these findings suggest is that in the patient population treated with intensive induction, we are moving beyond autologous stem cell transplant. These results were similar across all subgroups. In fact, outcomes were most striking for patients with higher risk features like high Ki-67 and overexpression of p53.

The patients who need ibrutinib most were those who were most likely to benefit, and that is really encouraging for all of us. There is a clear trend toward an improvement in overall survival with ibrutinib maintenance and there clearly is less toxicity and less treatment-related mortality from avoiding transplant.

It will be important to see this trial published in a peer-reviewed journal with more granular data. But to me, these trial results are groundbreaking. It is a practice-changing trial for sure.

Is there anything else from an investigational approach on the horizon for MCL?

Dr. Martin: Yes. I would like to highlight 2 trials that stand out to me.

First, my colleague Dr. Ruan from Cornell presented on a phase 2 trial of a triplet of acalabrutinib plus lenalidomide plus rituximab with real-time monitoring of minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients with treatment-naive MCL.

This was a small trial with just 24 patients. It was fairly evenly split between low-, medium-, and high-risk MCL international prognostic index (MIPI) scores. All of these patients received the triplet for 1 year of induction followed by an additional year of maintenance with a slightly lower dose of lenalidomide. At the end of 2 years, patients who were in a durable MRD-negative state could stop the oral therapy and just continue with rituximab maintenance.

In a prior trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine, we showed that the lenalidomide plus rituximab regimen has a complete response rate of about 60%. In this new ongoing trial regimen of acalabrutinib plus lenalidomide plus rituximab, we found that at the end of just 1 year of induction treatment, the complete response rate was 83%. With all of the caveats and comparing across trials, this new regimen was clearly active and potentially more active than the prior regimen. It also appeared to be well tolerated without any real significant issues.

I think what this trial plus the TRIANGLE showed us is that BTK inhibitors belong in the front-line setting. That is what patients want. That is what physicians want.

The other trial that I wanted to highlight is an update of something that we saw last year at ASH, specifically a phase 1/2 trial of glofitamab in people with previously treated MCL. The overall response rate was 83% and the complete response rate was 73%. The complete response rate at the first assessment was already almost 50%. These are among patients who have had prior treatment for MCL, including BTK inhibitors.

We are not accustomed to seeing treatments that are so active in the relapsed/refractory MCL patient population, particularly, if they have had a prior BTK inhibitor. So, these results are exciting and promising.

This compares to the ZUMA-2 trial with CAR T-cells. CAR T-cells are also strikingly active in this patient population, but they do have some drawbacks. They have to be administered in a specialized facility and they are associated with fairly high rates of cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity.

The rates of grade 3 to 4 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity with glofitamab were low, but not negligible. All cytokine release syndrome events were manageable, and no patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. This is, potentially, attractive, because it offers an active therapy to a broader subset of patients with MCL who may not be able to access CAR T-cell therapy as easily. A phase 3 trial is in the planning stages, and it is likely that if that trial has positive results, we will see glofitamab approved in the not-too-distant future for people with MCL, and having more options is always great.

Based on these developments, do you see any shifts in your day-to-day practice in the future?

Dr. Martin: I think what has been interesting to me about MCL over the past decade is this idea that not everybody is the same. That should not come as a surprise statement, but MCL does behave differently in different people.

As a physician who treats a lot of patients with MCL, I have seen all of the different ways in which MCL can behave; combine that with the heterogeneity of humanity as a whole. Having guidelines from the NCCN (National Comprehensive Care Network) are helpful, but those guidelines are broad.

Learning how to take all that heterogeneity and variety into account and match the appropriate treatment to each patient is important. What these front-line trials are telling us is that it is OK to do research that does not involve chemotherapy.

In the past, it might have been considered unethical to give a younger patient a treatment without autologous stem cell transplant. But that is clearly not the case now. I think that in real-life practice in the near future, guidelines may actually start to get a little bit easier to follow as we come up with options that are less intensive.

It may be that patients can access treatments that are a little bit easier, that do not involve a transplant. That would be good for people with MCL from all across the country.

What were the most exciting mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) updates from the recent meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH)?

Dr. Martin: The 2022 ASH meeting reported mostly about MCL research, which is great for the MCL community, because clearly, there is a lot of room for improvement. One of the big trials presented at a plenary session—one which we have been eager to see the results from, but maybe did not expect to see quite so soon—was the European MCL Network TRIANGLE trial. This is a 3-arm trial in which 870 patients were randomized. They had treatment-naive MCL and were younger than 66 years, so they were eligible for more intensive chemotherapy.

Arm A was the standard-of-care arm, defined by the prior European MCL Network TRIANGLE Trial. This was 6 alternating cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin hydrochloride [doxorubicin hydrochloride], vincristine, and prednisone) and R-DHAP (rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin) – 3 of each followed by autologous stem cell transplant. Arm B was the same regimen with the addition of the first-in-class Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib to induction followed by 2 years of ibrutinib maintenance. Arm C was the same induction regimen (6 alternating cycles of R-CHOP and R-DHAP plus ibrutinib during induction and maintenance) with no autologous stem cell transplant. Roughly half the patients in the trial, all equally distributed across all arms, received 3 years of maintenance rituximab.

The primary outcome was failure-free survival (FFS). After only 31 months of median follow-up, the trial reported a significant difference in FFS between patients receiving ibrutinib (Arms B and C) and patients who underwent autologous stem cell transplant and did not receive ibrutinib (Arm A).

This clearly shows that 2 years of ibrutinib maintenance significantly improves FFS. FFS was 88% versus 72% (Arm B vs Arm A) at 3 years with a hazard ratio of 0.5. That is a striking hazard ratio, highly statistically significant. Importantly, patients in Arms B and C fared similarly, suggesting that transplant was unnecessary in patients receiving ibrutinib.

What these findings suggest is that in the patient population treated with intensive induction, we are moving beyond autologous stem cell transplant. These results were similar across all subgroups. In fact, outcomes were most striking for patients with higher risk features like high Ki-67 and overexpression of p53.

The patients who need ibrutinib most were those who were most likely to benefit, and that is really encouraging for all of us. There is a clear trend toward an improvement in overall survival with ibrutinib maintenance and there clearly is less toxicity and less treatment-related mortality from avoiding transplant.

It will be important to see this trial published in a peer-reviewed journal with more granular data. But to me, these trial results are groundbreaking. It is a practice-changing trial for sure.

Is there anything else from an investigational approach on the horizon for MCL?

Dr. Martin: Yes. I would like to highlight 2 trials that stand out to me.

First, my colleague Dr. Ruan from Cornell presented on a phase 2 trial of a triplet of acalabrutinib plus lenalidomide plus rituximab with real-time monitoring of minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients with treatment-naive MCL.

This was a small trial with just 24 patients. It was fairly evenly split between low-, medium-, and high-risk MCL international prognostic index (MIPI) scores. All of these patients received the triplet for 1 year of induction followed by an additional year of maintenance with a slightly lower dose of lenalidomide. At the end of 2 years, patients who were in a durable MRD-negative state could stop the oral therapy and just continue with rituximab maintenance.

In a prior trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine, we showed that the lenalidomide plus rituximab regimen has a complete response rate of about 60%. In this new ongoing trial regimen of acalabrutinib plus lenalidomide plus rituximab, we found that at the end of just 1 year of induction treatment, the complete response rate was 83%. With all of the caveats and comparing across trials, this new regimen was clearly active and potentially more active than the prior regimen. It also appeared to be well tolerated without any real significant issues.

I think what this trial plus the TRIANGLE showed us is that BTK inhibitors belong in the front-line setting. That is what patients want. That is what physicians want.

The other trial that I wanted to highlight is an update of something that we saw last year at ASH, specifically a phase 1/2 trial of glofitamab in people with previously treated MCL. The overall response rate was 83% and the complete response rate was 73%. The complete response rate at the first assessment was already almost 50%. These are among patients who have had prior treatment for MCL, including BTK inhibitors.

We are not accustomed to seeing treatments that are so active in the relapsed/refractory MCL patient population, particularly, if they have had a prior BTK inhibitor. So, these results are exciting and promising.

This compares to the ZUMA-2 trial with CAR T-cells. CAR T-cells are also strikingly active in this patient population, but they do have some drawbacks. They have to be administered in a specialized facility and they are associated with fairly high rates of cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity.

The rates of grade 3 to 4 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity with glofitamab were low, but not negligible. All cytokine release syndrome events were manageable, and no patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. This is, potentially, attractive, because it offers an active therapy to a broader subset of patients with MCL who may not be able to access CAR T-cell therapy as easily. A phase 3 trial is in the planning stages, and it is likely that if that trial has positive results, we will see glofitamab approved in the not-too-distant future for people with MCL, and having more options is always great.

Based on these developments, do you see any shifts in your day-to-day practice in the future?

Dr. Martin: I think what has been interesting to me about MCL over the past decade is this idea that not everybody is the same. That should not come as a surprise statement, but MCL does behave differently in different people.

As a physician who treats a lot of patients with MCL, I have seen all of the different ways in which MCL can behave; combine that with the heterogeneity of humanity as a whole. Having guidelines from the NCCN (National Comprehensive Care Network) are helpful, but those guidelines are broad.

Learning how to take all that heterogeneity and variety into account and match the appropriate treatment to each patient is important. What these front-line trials are telling us is that it is OK to do research that does not involve chemotherapy.

In the past, it might have been considered unethical to give a younger patient a treatment without autologous stem cell transplant. But that is clearly not the case now. I think that in real-life practice in the near future, guidelines may actually start to get a little bit easier to follow as we come up with options that are less intensive.

It may be that patients can access treatments that are a little bit easier, that do not involve a transplant. That would be good for people with MCL from all across the country.

What were the most exciting mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) updates from the recent meeting of the American Society of Hematology (ASH)?

Dr. Martin: The 2022 ASH meeting reported mostly about MCL research, which is great for the MCL community, because clearly, there is a lot of room for improvement. One of the big trials presented at a plenary session—one which we have been eager to see the results from, but maybe did not expect to see quite so soon—was the European MCL Network TRIANGLE trial. This is a 3-arm trial in which 870 patients were randomized. They had treatment-naive MCL and were younger than 66 years, so they were eligible for more intensive chemotherapy.

Arm A was the standard-of-care arm, defined by the prior European MCL Network TRIANGLE Trial. This was 6 alternating cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin hydrochloride [doxorubicin hydrochloride], vincristine, and prednisone) and R-DHAP (rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin) – 3 of each followed by autologous stem cell transplant. Arm B was the same regimen with the addition of the first-in-class Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib to induction followed by 2 years of ibrutinib maintenance. Arm C was the same induction regimen (6 alternating cycles of R-CHOP and R-DHAP plus ibrutinib during induction and maintenance) with no autologous stem cell transplant. Roughly half the patients in the trial, all equally distributed across all arms, received 3 years of maintenance rituximab.

The primary outcome was failure-free survival (FFS). After only 31 months of median follow-up, the trial reported a significant difference in FFS between patients receiving ibrutinib (Arms B and C) and patients who underwent autologous stem cell transplant and did not receive ibrutinib (Arm A).

This clearly shows that 2 years of ibrutinib maintenance significantly improves FFS. FFS was 88% versus 72% (Arm B vs Arm A) at 3 years with a hazard ratio of 0.5. That is a striking hazard ratio, highly statistically significant. Importantly, patients in Arms B and C fared similarly, suggesting that transplant was unnecessary in patients receiving ibrutinib.

What these findings suggest is that in the patient population treated with intensive induction, we are moving beyond autologous stem cell transplant. These results were similar across all subgroups. In fact, outcomes were most striking for patients with higher risk features like high Ki-67 and overexpression of p53.

The patients who need ibrutinib most were those who were most likely to benefit, and that is really encouraging for all of us. There is a clear trend toward an improvement in overall survival with ibrutinib maintenance and there clearly is less toxicity and less treatment-related mortality from avoiding transplant.

It will be important to see this trial published in a peer-reviewed journal with more granular data. But to me, these trial results are groundbreaking. It is a practice-changing trial for sure.

Is there anything else from an investigational approach on the horizon for MCL?

Dr. Martin: Yes. I would like to highlight 2 trials that stand out to me.

First, my colleague Dr. Ruan from Cornell presented on a phase 2 trial of a triplet of acalabrutinib plus lenalidomide plus rituximab with real-time monitoring of minimal residual disease (MRD) in patients with treatment-naive MCL.

This was a small trial with just 24 patients. It was fairly evenly split between low-, medium-, and high-risk MCL international prognostic index (MIPI) scores. All of these patients received the triplet for 1 year of induction followed by an additional year of maintenance with a slightly lower dose of lenalidomide. At the end of 2 years, patients who were in a durable MRD-negative state could stop the oral therapy and just continue with rituximab maintenance.

In a prior trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine, we showed that the lenalidomide plus rituximab regimen has a complete response rate of about 60%. In this new ongoing trial regimen of acalabrutinib plus lenalidomide plus rituximab, we found that at the end of just 1 year of induction treatment, the complete response rate was 83%. With all of the caveats and comparing across trials, this new regimen was clearly active and potentially more active than the prior regimen. It also appeared to be well tolerated without any real significant issues.

I think what this trial plus the TRIANGLE showed us is that BTK inhibitors belong in the front-line setting. That is what patients want. That is what physicians want.

The other trial that I wanted to highlight is an update of something that we saw last year at ASH, specifically a phase 1/2 trial of glofitamab in people with previously treated MCL. The overall response rate was 83% and the complete response rate was 73%. The complete response rate at the first assessment was already almost 50%. These are among patients who have had prior treatment for MCL, including BTK inhibitors.

We are not accustomed to seeing treatments that are so active in the relapsed/refractory MCL patient population, particularly, if they have had a prior BTK inhibitor. So, these results are exciting and promising.

This compares to the ZUMA-2 trial with CAR T-cells. CAR T-cells are also strikingly active in this patient population, but they do have some drawbacks. They have to be administered in a specialized facility and they are associated with fairly high rates of cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity.

The rates of grade 3 to 4 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity with glofitamab were low, but not negligible. All cytokine release syndrome events were manageable, and no patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. This is, potentially, attractive, because it offers an active therapy to a broader subset of patients with MCL who may not be able to access CAR T-cell therapy as easily. A phase 3 trial is in the planning stages, and it is likely that if that trial has positive results, we will see glofitamab approved in the not-too-distant future for people with MCL, and having more options is always great.

Based on these developments, do you see any shifts in your day-to-day practice in the future?

Dr. Martin: I think what has been interesting to me about MCL over the past decade is this idea that not everybody is the same. That should not come as a surprise statement, but MCL does behave differently in different people.

As a physician who treats a lot of patients with MCL, I have seen all of the different ways in which MCL can behave; combine that with the heterogeneity of humanity as a whole. Having guidelines from the NCCN (National Comprehensive Care Network) are helpful, but those guidelines are broad.

Learning how to take all that heterogeneity and variety into account and match the appropriate treatment to each patient is important. What these front-line trials are telling us is that it is OK to do research that does not involve chemotherapy.

In the past, it might have been considered unethical to give a younger patient a treatment without autologous stem cell transplant. But that is clearly not the case now. I think that in real-life practice in the near future, guidelines may actually start to get a little bit easier to follow as we come up with options that are less intensive.

It may be that patients can access treatments that are a little bit easier, that do not involve a transplant. That would be good for people with MCL from all across the country.

In this era of efficacious treatments for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), patients who survive 2 years sans disease recurrence or progression live nearly as long as age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population, a recent study showed.

Patients with MCL who achieved this endpoint – event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) – also had a low risk of lymphoma-related death, and most often died from unrelated causes, according to results of the prospective cohort study.

Although longer follow-up and confirmation from other study groups are needed, these findings demonstrated a prognostic role for EFS24 in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to the lead author, Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist with Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

As more effective therapies emerge, overall survival (OS) will likely continue to improve, such that EFS24 will may become an important clinical endpoint in MCL frontline therapy, according to Dr. Wang.

“When we counseled patients with newly diagnosed MCL, we used to tell them that this is an aggressive and incurable disease, and patients would feel bad about it, “ Dr. Wang said in an interview.

“Now that we have better therapy, and outcomes are improving,” he continued, “I think it’s important to tell our patients now that we have improved outcomes for patients with this disease, and things are probably going to get better in the future, to always remain hopeful. That’s powerful for our patients to know.”
 

Two eras of treatment

The current analysis by Dr. Wang and colleagues was based on patients identified in the Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource Cohort Study, a prospective observational study of lymphoma patients evaluated at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa.

The patients were divided into two “eras” of treatment, based on the date of enrollment. Era 1 of enrollment was 2002 to 2009, and Era 2 was 2010 to 2015.

Patients in Era 2 had a substantially improved EFS and OS compared with those in Era 1, according to a previous report from Dr. Wang and coauthors.

Those improved treatment outcomes were likely due to advances in frontline immunochemotherapy, the authors said in that report. In particular, they pointed to the use of highly effective induction regimens containing high-dose cytarabine in patients who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation, and the combined use of rituximab-bendamustine in patients who were not eligible for transplant.

In addition, the increased use of salvage treatments such as lenalidomide and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors has likely contributed to improvements in outcomes across eras, Dr. Wang and coauthors said in the present report, which looks more closely at the prognostic role of the EFS24 endpoint in Era 1 and Era 2 patients.

The five-year OS for patients diagnosed in Era 2 was 68.4%, compared with 59.2% in Era 1, the authors reported.

Achieving 2 years of EFS had no impact on OS in the earlier era, their findings further show.

In Era 1, the 98 patients who achieved EFS24 went on to have inferior OS compared with the general population, while in Era 2, the 99 patients achieving EFS24 had similar OS compared with the general population.

This was reported as a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in Era 1 of 2.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.92; P < .001). By contrast, the SMR in Era 2 was just 1.31 (95% CI, 0.78-2.07; P = .31).

The risk of dying from lymphoma was lower among patients achieving EFS24 in the more recent Era 2, the results showed.

Among patients in Era 1 achieving EFS24, the primary cause of death was lymphoma-related, and the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 19.8%, versus 6.2% for causes of death unrelated to lymphoma.

By contrast, among patients in Era 2 achieving EFS24, the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 2.1% and 5.5% for other causes.
 

Favorable prognosis

These findings clearly showed that in one cohort of patients with MCL treated in the recent past, those patients going 2 years without evidence of disease progression or events “have a great prognosis,” said Matthew Matasar, MD, MS, chief of blood disorders, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and RWJBarnabas Health.

However, there are limitations to describing the role of EFS24 in MCL based solely on this single-cohort study, Dr. Matasar said in an interview.

“There’s a lot of heterogeneity in how we treat mantle cell lymphoma,” he said, “so I would just caution generalizing out of a patient population treated one way to populations that may receive quite different therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Wang said he and his coinvestigators have several confirmatory studies in the works that are focused on other groups of patients both inside and outside the United States, to validate of EFS24 as an endpoint.

“We have at least four cohorts to look into this and see whether we can see the same or similar results,” he said in the interview.

Dr. Wang disclosed ties with Incyte, InnoCare, LOXO Oncology, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Genmab, and Kite.

In this era of efficacious treatments for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), patients who survive 2 years sans disease recurrence or progression live nearly as long as age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population, a recent study showed.

Patients with MCL who achieved this endpoint – event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) – also had a low risk of lymphoma-related death, and most often died from unrelated causes, according to results of the prospective cohort study.

Although longer follow-up and confirmation from other study groups are needed, these findings demonstrated a prognostic role for EFS24 in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to the lead author, Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist with Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

As more effective therapies emerge, overall survival (OS) will likely continue to improve, such that EFS24 will may become an important clinical endpoint in MCL frontline therapy, according to Dr. Wang.

“When we counseled patients with newly diagnosed MCL, we used to tell them that this is an aggressive and incurable disease, and patients would feel bad about it, “ Dr. Wang said in an interview.

“Now that we have better therapy, and outcomes are improving,” he continued, “I think it’s important to tell our patients now that we have improved outcomes for patients with this disease, and things are probably going to get better in the future, to always remain hopeful. That’s powerful for our patients to know.”
 

Two eras of treatment

The current analysis by Dr. Wang and colleagues was based on patients identified in the Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource Cohort Study, a prospective observational study of lymphoma patients evaluated at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa.

The patients were divided into two “eras” of treatment, based on the date of enrollment. Era 1 of enrollment was 2002 to 2009, and Era 2 was 2010 to 2015.

Patients in Era 2 had a substantially improved EFS and OS compared with those in Era 1, according to a previous report from Dr. Wang and coauthors.

Those improved treatment outcomes were likely due to advances in frontline immunochemotherapy, the authors said in that report. In particular, they pointed to the use of highly effective induction regimens containing high-dose cytarabine in patients who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation, and the combined use of rituximab-bendamustine in patients who were not eligible for transplant.

In addition, the increased use of salvage treatments such as lenalidomide and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors has likely contributed to improvements in outcomes across eras, Dr. Wang and coauthors said in the present report, which looks more closely at the prognostic role of the EFS24 endpoint in Era 1 and Era 2 patients.

The five-year OS for patients diagnosed in Era 2 was 68.4%, compared with 59.2% in Era 1, the authors reported.

Achieving 2 years of EFS had no impact on OS in the earlier era, their findings further show.

In Era 1, the 98 patients who achieved EFS24 went on to have inferior OS compared with the general population, while in Era 2, the 99 patients achieving EFS24 had similar OS compared with the general population.

This was reported as a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in Era 1 of 2.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.92; P < .001). By contrast, the SMR in Era 2 was just 1.31 (95% CI, 0.78-2.07; P = .31).

The risk of dying from lymphoma was lower among patients achieving EFS24 in the more recent Era 2, the results showed.

Among patients in Era 1 achieving EFS24, the primary cause of death was lymphoma-related, and the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 19.8%, versus 6.2% for causes of death unrelated to lymphoma.

By contrast, among patients in Era 2 achieving EFS24, the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 2.1% and 5.5% for other causes.
 

Favorable prognosis

These findings clearly showed that in one cohort of patients with MCL treated in the recent past, those patients going 2 years without evidence of disease progression or events “have a great prognosis,” said Matthew Matasar, MD, MS, chief of blood disorders, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and RWJBarnabas Health.

However, there are limitations to describing the role of EFS24 in MCL based solely on this single-cohort study, Dr. Matasar said in an interview.

“There’s a lot of heterogeneity in how we treat mantle cell lymphoma,” he said, “so I would just caution generalizing out of a patient population treated one way to populations that may receive quite different therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Wang said he and his coinvestigators have several confirmatory studies in the works that are focused on other groups of patients both inside and outside the United States, to validate of EFS24 as an endpoint.

“We have at least four cohorts to look into this and see whether we can see the same or similar results,” he said in the interview.

Dr. Wang disclosed ties with Incyte, InnoCare, LOXO Oncology, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Genmab, and Kite.

In this era of efficacious treatments for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), patients who survive 2 years sans disease recurrence or progression live nearly as long as age- and sex-matched individuals in the general population, a recent study showed.

Patients with MCL who achieved this endpoint – event-free survival at 24 months (EFS24) – also had a low risk of lymphoma-related death, and most often died from unrelated causes, according to results of the prospective cohort study.

Although longer follow-up and confirmation from other study groups are needed, these findings demonstrated a prognostic role for EFS24 in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, according to the lead author, Yucai Wang, MD, PhD, a hematologist/oncologist with Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

As more effective therapies emerge, overall survival (OS) will likely continue to improve, such that EFS24 will may become an important clinical endpoint in MCL frontline therapy, according to Dr. Wang.

“When we counseled patients with newly diagnosed MCL, we used to tell them that this is an aggressive and incurable disease, and patients would feel bad about it, “ Dr. Wang said in an interview.

“Now that we have better therapy, and outcomes are improving,” he continued, “I think it’s important to tell our patients now that we have improved outcomes for patients with this disease, and things are probably going to get better in the future, to always remain hopeful. That’s powerful for our patients to know.”
 

Two eras of treatment

The current analysis by Dr. Wang and colleagues was based on patients identified in the Lymphoma Specialized Program of Research Excellence Molecular Epidemiology Resource Cohort Study, a prospective observational study of lymphoma patients evaluated at the Mayo Clinic and the University of Iowa.

The patients were divided into two “eras” of treatment, based on the date of enrollment. Era 1 of enrollment was 2002 to 2009, and Era 2 was 2010 to 2015.

Patients in Era 2 had a substantially improved EFS and OS compared with those in Era 1, according to a previous report from Dr. Wang and coauthors.

Those improved treatment outcomes were likely due to advances in frontline immunochemotherapy, the authors said in that report. In particular, they pointed to the use of highly effective induction regimens containing high-dose cytarabine in patients who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation, and the combined use of rituximab-bendamustine in patients who were not eligible for transplant.

In addition, the increased use of salvage treatments such as lenalidomide and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors has likely contributed to improvements in outcomes across eras, Dr. Wang and coauthors said in the present report, which looks more closely at the prognostic role of the EFS24 endpoint in Era 1 and Era 2 patients.

The five-year OS for patients diagnosed in Era 2 was 68.4%, compared with 59.2% in Era 1, the authors reported.

Achieving 2 years of EFS had no impact on OS in the earlier era, their findings further show.

In Era 1, the 98 patients who achieved EFS24 went on to have inferior OS compared with the general population, while in Era 2, the 99 patients achieving EFS24 had similar OS compared with the general population.

This was reported as a standardized mortality ratio (SMR) in Era 1 of 2.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.67-2.92; P < .001). By contrast, the SMR in Era 2 was just 1.31 (95% CI, 0.78-2.07; P = .31).

The risk of dying from lymphoma was lower among patients achieving EFS24 in the more recent Era 2, the results showed.

Among patients in Era 1 achieving EFS24, the primary cause of death was lymphoma-related, and the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 19.8%, versus 6.2% for causes of death unrelated to lymphoma.

By contrast, among patients in Era 2 achieving EFS24, the 5-year rate of lymphoma-related death was 2.1% and 5.5% for other causes.
 

Favorable prognosis

These findings clearly showed that in one cohort of patients with MCL treated in the recent past, those patients going 2 years without evidence of disease progression or events “have a great prognosis,” said Matthew Matasar, MD, MS, chief of blood disorders, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey and RWJBarnabas Health.

However, there are limitations to describing the role of EFS24 in MCL based solely on this single-cohort study, Dr. Matasar said in an interview.

“There’s a lot of heterogeneity in how we treat mantle cell lymphoma,” he said, “so I would just caution generalizing out of a patient population treated one way to populations that may receive quite different therapeutic approaches.”

Dr. Wang said he and his coinvestigators have several confirmatory studies in the works that are focused on other groups of patients both inside and outside the United States, to validate of EFS24 as an endpoint.

“We have at least four cohorts to look into this and see whether we can see the same or similar results,” he said in the interview.

Dr. Wang disclosed ties with Incyte, InnoCare, LOXO Oncology, Novartis, Genentech, Eli Lilly, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Genmab, and Kite.

This patient's clinical presentation and endoscopy findings are consistent with a diagnosis of recurrent MCL presenting as a colonic mass.

MCL is an aggressive type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that accounts for approximately 5%-7% of all lymphomas. Nearly 80% of patients have extranodal involvement at initial presentation, occurring in sites such as the bone marrow, spleen, Waldeyer ring, and the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Secondary GI involvement in MCL (involving nodal and/or other extranodal tissue) is common and may be detected at diagnosis and/or relapse. In several retrospective studies, the prevalence of secondary GI involvement in MCL ranged from 15% to 30%. However, in later studies, routine endoscopies in patients with untreated MCL showed GI involvement in up to 90% of patients, despite most patients not reporting GI symptoms.

The colon is the most commonly involved GI site; however, both the upper and lower GI tract from the stomach to the colon can be involved. Lymphomatous polyposis is the most common endoscopic presentation of MCL, but polyp, mass, or even normal-appearing mucosa may also be seen. 

New and emerging treatment options are helping to improve survival in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL. According to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, the preferred second-line and subsequent regimens are:

•    Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors:

o    Acalabrutinib
o    Ibrutinib ± rituximab
o    Zanubrutinib

•    Lenalidomide + rituximab (if BTK inhibitor is contraindicated)

Other regimens that may be useful in certain circumstances are:

•    Bendamustine + rituximab (if not previously given)
•    Bendamustine + rituximab + cytarabine (RBAC500) (if not previously given)
•    Bortezomib ± rituximab
•    RDHA (rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine) + platinum (carboplatin, cisplatin, or oxaliplatin) (if not previously given)
•    GemOx (gemcitabine, oxaliplatin) + rituximab
•    Ibrutinib, lenalidomide, rituximab (category 2B)
•    Ibrutinib + venetoclax
•    Venetoclax, lenalidomide, rituximab (category 2B)
•    Venetoclax ± rituximab

Brexucabtagene autoleucel is suggested as third-line therapy, after chemoimmunotherapy and treatment with a BTK inhibitor. 

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine - Clinical, Division of Hematology, The Ohio State University James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH.

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Morphosys; Incyte; Recordati.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

This patient's clinical presentation and endoscopy findings are consistent with a diagnosis of recurrent MCL presenting as a colonic mass.

MCL is an aggressive type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that accounts for approximately 5%-7% of all lymphomas. Nearly 80% of patients have extranodal involvement at initial presentation, occurring in sites such as the bone marrow, spleen, Waldeyer ring, and the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Secondary GI involvement in MCL (involving nodal and/or other extranodal tissue) is common and may be detected at diagnosis and/or relapse. In several retrospective studies, the prevalence of secondary GI involvement in MCL ranged from 15% to 30%. However, in later studies, routine endoscopies in patients with untreated MCL showed GI involvement in up to 90% of patients, despite most patients not reporting GI symptoms.

The colon is the most commonly involved GI site; however, both the upper and lower GI tract from the stomach to the colon can be involved. Lymphomatous polyposis is the most common endoscopic presentation of MCL, but polyp, mass, or even normal-appearing mucosa may also be seen. 

New and emerging treatment options are helping to improve survival in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL. According to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, the preferred second-line and subsequent regimens are:

•    Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors:

o    Acalabrutinib
o    Ibrutinib ± rituximab
o    Zanubrutinib

•    Lenalidomide + rituximab (if BTK inhibitor is contraindicated)

Other regimens that may be useful in certain circumstances are:

•    Bendamustine + rituximab (if not previously given)
•    Bendamustine + rituximab + cytarabine (RBAC500) (if not previously given)
•    Bortezomib ± rituximab
•    RDHA (rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine) + platinum (carboplatin, cisplatin, or oxaliplatin) (if not previously given)
•    GemOx (gemcitabine, oxaliplatin) + rituximab
•    Ibrutinib, lenalidomide, rituximab (category 2B)
•    Ibrutinib + venetoclax
•    Venetoclax, lenalidomide, rituximab (category 2B)
•    Venetoclax ± rituximab

Brexucabtagene autoleucel is suggested as third-line therapy, after chemoimmunotherapy and treatment with a BTK inhibitor. 

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine - Clinical, Division of Hematology, The Ohio State University James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH.

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Morphosys; Incyte; Recordati.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

This patient's clinical presentation and endoscopy findings are consistent with a diagnosis of recurrent MCL presenting as a colonic mass.

MCL is an aggressive type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that accounts for approximately 5%-7% of all lymphomas. Nearly 80% of patients have extranodal involvement at initial presentation, occurring in sites such as the bone marrow, spleen, Waldeyer ring, and the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Secondary GI involvement in MCL (involving nodal and/or other extranodal tissue) is common and may be detected at diagnosis and/or relapse. In several retrospective studies, the prevalence of secondary GI involvement in MCL ranged from 15% to 30%. However, in later studies, routine endoscopies in patients with untreated MCL showed GI involvement in up to 90% of patients, despite most patients not reporting GI symptoms.

The colon is the most commonly involved GI site; however, both the upper and lower GI tract from the stomach to the colon can be involved. Lymphomatous polyposis is the most common endoscopic presentation of MCL, but polyp, mass, or even normal-appearing mucosa may also be seen. 

New and emerging treatment options are helping to improve survival in patients with relapsed/refractory MCL. According to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, the preferred second-line and subsequent regimens are:

•    Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors:

o    Acalabrutinib
o    Ibrutinib ± rituximab
o    Zanubrutinib

•    Lenalidomide + rituximab (if BTK inhibitor is contraindicated)

Other regimens that may be useful in certain circumstances are:

•    Bendamustine + rituximab (if not previously given)
•    Bendamustine + rituximab + cytarabine (RBAC500) (if not previously given)
•    Bortezomib ± rituximab
•    RDHA (rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine) + platinum (carboplatin, cisplatin, or oxaliplatin) (if not previously given)
•    GemOx (gemcitabine, oxaliplatin) + rituximab
•    Ibrutinib, lenalidomide, rituximab (category 2B)
•    Ibrutinib + venetoclax
•    Venetoclax, lenalidomide, rituximab (category 2B)
•    Venetoclax ± rituximab

Brexucabtagene autoleucel is suggested as third-line therapy, after chemoimmunotherapy and treatment with a BTK inhibitor. 

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine - Clinical, Division of Hematology, The Ohio State University James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH.

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Morphosys; Incyte; Recordati.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

This patient's findings are consistent with a diagnosis of malignant mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

MCL is a rare and aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that accounts for approximately 5%-7% of all lymphomas. MCL has a characteristic immunophenotype (ie, CD5+, CD10−, Bcl-2+, Bcl-6−, CD20+), with the t(11;14)(q13;q32) chromosomal translocation, and expression of cyclin D1. The median age at diagnosis is between 60 and 70 years. Approximately 70% of all cases occur in men. 

The clinical presentation of MCL can vary. Patients may have asymptomatic monoclonal MCL type lymphocytosis or nonbulky nodal/extra nodal disease with minimal symptoms, or they may present with significant symptoms, progressive generalized lymphadenopathy, cytopenia, splenomegaly, and extranodal disease, including gastrointestinal involvement (lymphomatous polyposis), kidney involvement, involvement of other organs, or, rarely, central nervous system involvement. Disease involving multiple lymph nodes and other sites of the body is seen in most patients. Approximately 70% of patients present with stage IV disease requiring systemic treatment.

According to 2022 guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), essential components in the workup for MCL include:

•    Physical examination, with attention to node-bearing areas, including Waldeyer ring, and to size of liver and spleen
•    Assessment of performance status and B symptoms (ie, fever > 100.4°F [may be sporadic], drenching night sweats, unintentional weight loss of > 10% of body weight over 6 months or less)
•    CBC with differential
•    Comprehensive metabolic panel
•    Serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (an important prognostic marker)
•    PET/CT scan (including neck)
•    Hepatitis B testing if treatment with rituximab is being contemplated
•    Echocardiogram or multigated acquisition (MUGA) scan if anthracycline or anthracenedione-based regimen is indicated
•    Pregnancy testing in women of childbearing age (if chemotherapy or radiation therapy is planned) 

Additional testing may be indicated in specific circumstances, such as colonoscopy/endoscopy. 

MCL remains challenging to treat. While 50%-90% of patients with MCL respond to combination chemotherapy, only 30% achieve a complete response. Median time to treatment failure is < 18 months. 

When selecting systemic treatment for patients with MCL, clinicians should consider the availability of clinical trials for subsets of patients, eligibility for stem cell transplant (SCT), high-risk status (ie, blastoid MCL, high Ki-67% > 30%, or central nervous system involvement), age, and performance status. The addition of radiation to chemotherapy may be beneficial for patients with limited-stage, nonbulky disease, although this has not been confirmed in large, randomized studies. Outside of clinical trials, the usual approach for frontline treatment of MCL is chemoimmunotherapy with/without autologous SCT and with/without maintenance therapy.

Available options for primary MCL therapy in patients who require systemic therapy include: 

•    Single alkylating agents
•    CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone)
•    CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin [hydroxydaunorubicin], vincristine [Oncovin], prednisone)
•    Hyper-CVAD (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) with or without rituximab
•    R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone)
•    Lenalidomide plus rituximab
•    Hyper-CVAD with autologous SCT

Options for relapsed or refractory MCL include:

•    R-hyper-CVAD
•    Hyper-CVAD with or without rituximab followed by autologous SCT
•    Nucleoside analogues and combinations
•    Salvage chemotherapy combinations followed by autologous SCT
•    Bortezomib 
•    Lenalidomide 
•    Ibrutinib 
•    Radioimmunotherapy
•    Rituximab
•    Rituximab and thalidomide combination
•    Acalabrutinib 
•    High-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow or SCT
•    Brexucabtagene autoleucel 

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine - Clinical, Division of Hematology, The Ohio State University James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH.

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Morphosys; Incyte; Recordati.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

This patient's findings are consistent with a diagnosis of malignant mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

MCL is a rare and aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that accounts for approximately 5%-7% of all lymphomas. MCL has a characteristic immunophenotype (ie, CD5+, CD10−, Bcl-2+, Bcl-6−, CD20+), with the t(11;14)(q13;q32) chromosomal translocation, and expression of cyclin D1. The median age at diagnosis is between 60 and 70 years. Approximately 70% of all cases occur in men. 

The clinical presentation of MCL can vary. Patients may have asymptomatic monoclonal MCL type lymphocytosis or nonbulky nodal/extra nodal disease with minimal symptoms, or they may present with significant symptoms, progressive generalized lymphadenopathy, cytopenia, splenomegaly, and extranodal disease, including gastrointestinal involvement (lymphomatous polyposis), kidney involvement, involvement of other organs, or, rarely, central nervous system involvement. Disease involving multiple lymph nodes and other sites of the body is seen in most patients. Approximately 70% of patients present with stage IV disease requiring systemic treatment.

According to 2022 guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), essential components in the workup for MCL include:

•    Physical examination, with attention to node-bearing areas, including Waldeyer ring, and to size of liver and spleen
•    Assessment of performance status and B symptoms (ie, fever > 100.4°F [may be sporadic], drenching night sweats, unintentional weight loss of > 10% of body weight over 6 months or less)
•    CBC with differential
•    Comprehensive metabolic panel
•    Serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (an important prognostic marker)
•    PET/CT scan (including neck)
•    Hepatitis B testing if treatment with rituximab is being contemplated
•    Echocardiogram or multigated acquisition (MUGA) scan if anthracycline or anthracenedione-based regimen is indicated
•    Pregnancy testing in women of childbearing age (if chemotherapy or radiation therapy is planned) 

Additional testing may be indicated in specific circumstances, such as colonoscopy/endoscopy. 

MCL remains challenging to treat. While 50%-90% of patients with MCL respond to combination chemotherapy, only 30% achieve a complete response. Median time to treatment failure is < 18 months. 

When selecting systemic treatment for patients with MCL, clinicians should consider the availability of clinical trials for subsets of patients, eligibility for stem cell transplant (SCT), high-risk status (ie, blastoid MCL, high Ki-67% > 30%, or central nervous system involvement), age, and performance status. The addition of radiation to chemotherapy may be beneficial for patients with limited-stage, nonbulky disease, although this has not been confirmed in large, randomized studies. Outside of clinical trials, the usual approach for frontline treatment of MCL is chemoimmunotherapy with/without autologous SCT and with/without maintenance therapy.

Available options for primary MCL therapy in patients who require systemic therapy include: 

•    Single alkylating agents
•    CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone)
•    CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin [hydroxydaunorubicin], vincristine [Oncovin], prednisone)
•    Hyper-CVAD (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) with or without rituximab
•    R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone)
•    Lenalidomide plus rituximab
•    Hyper-CVAD with autologous SCT

Options for relapsed or refractory MCL include:

•    R-hyper-CVAD
•    Hyper-CVAD with or without rituximab followed by autologous SCT
•    Nucleoside analogues and combinations
•    Salvage chemotherapy combinations followed by autologous SCT
•    Bortezomib 
•    Lenalidomide 
•    Ibrutinib 
•    Radioimmunotherapy
•    Rituximab
•    Rituximab and thalidomide combination
•    Acalabrutinib 
•    High-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow or SCT
•    Brexucabtagene autoleucel 

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine - Clinical, Division of Hematology, The Ohio State University James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH.

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Morphosys; Incyte; Recordati.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

This patient's findings are consistent with a diagnosis of malignant mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

MCL is a rare and aggressive form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that accounts for approximately 5%-7% of all lymphomas. MCL has a characteristic immunophenotype (ie, CD5+, CD10−, Bcl-2+, Bcl-6−, CD20+), with the t(11;14)(q13;q32) chromosomal translocation, and expression of cyclin D1. The median age at diagnosis is between 60 and 70 years. Approximately 70% of all cases occur in men. 

The clinical presentation of MCL can vary. Patients may have asymptomatic monoclonal MCL type lymphocytosis or nonbulky nodal/extra nodal disease with minimal symptoms, or they may present with significant symptoms, progressive generalized lymphadenopathy, cytopenia, splenomegaly, and extranodal disease, including gastrointestinal involvement (lymphomatous polyposis), kidney involvement, involvement of other organs, or, rarely, central nervous system involvement. Disease involving multiple lymph nodes and other sites of the body is seen in most patients. Approximately 70% of patients present with stage IV disease requiring systemic treatment.

According to 2022 guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), essential components in the workup for MCL include:

•    Physical examination, with attention to node-bearing areas, including Waldeyer ring, and to size of liver and spleen
•    Assessment of performance status and B symptoms (ie, fever > 100.4°F [may be sporadic], drenching night sweats, unintentional weight loss of > 10% of body weight over 6 months or less)
•    CBC with differential
•    Comprehensive metabolic panel
•    Serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level (an important prognostic marker)
•    PET/CT scan (including neck)
•    Hepatitis B testing if treatment with rituximab is being contemplated
•    Echocardiogram or multigated acquisition (MUGA) scan if anthracycline or anthracenedione-based regimen is indicated
•    Pregnancy testing in women of childbearing age (if chemotherapy or radiation therapy is planned) 

Additional testing may be indicated in specific circumstances, such as colonoscopy/endoscopy. 

MCL remains challenging to treat. While 50%-90% of patients with MCL respond to combination chemotherapy, only 30% achieve a complete response. Median time to treatment failure is < 18 months. 

When selecting systemic treatment for patients with MCL, clinicians should consider the availability of clinical trials for subsets of patients, eligibility for stem cell transplant (SCT), high-risk status (ie, blastoid MCL, high Ki-67% > 30%, or central nervous system involvement), age, and performance status. The addition of radiation to chemotherapy may be beneficial for patients with limited-stage, nonbulky disease, although this has not been confirmed in large, randomized studies. Outside of clinical trials, the usual approach for frontline treatment of MCL is chemoimmunotherapy with/without autologous SCT and with/without maintenance therapy.

Available options for primary MCL therapy in patients who require systemic therapy include: 

•    Single alkylating agents
•    CVP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, prednisone)
•    CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin [hydroxydaunorubicin], vincristine [Oncovin], prednisone)
•    Hyper-CVAD (hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, dexamethasone) with or without rituximab
•    R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone)
•    Lenalidomide plus rituximab
•    Hyper-CVAD with autologous SCT

Options for relapsed or refractory MCL include:

•    R-hyper-CVAD
•    Hyper-CVAD with or without rituximab followed by autologous SCT
•    Nucleoside analogues and combinations
•    Salvage chemotherapy combinations followed by autologous SCT
•    Bortezomib 
•    Lenalidomide 
•    Ibrutinib 
•    Radioimmunotherapy
•    Rituximab
•    Rituximab and thalidomide combination
•    Acalabrutinib 
•    High-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow or SCT
•    Brexucabtagene autoleucel 

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine - Clinical, Division of Hematology, The Ohio State University James Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, OH.

Timothy J. Voorhees, MD, MSCR, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Morphosys; Incyte; Recordati.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

NEW ORLEANS – Results of a new study could presage an end to the standard use of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for treating younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), a researcher told colleagues.

First-line patients fared well on ibrutinib, a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, according to the findings.

Courtesy ASH

“Based on the results so far ... at least for the majority of patients, ibrutinib early will become the new standard,” said study lead author Martin Dreyling, MD, associate professor of medicine at Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) Munich. Dr. Dreyling spoke in a news briefing and at a separate presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “It might well be that specific subsets of patients may benefit from autologous transplant.”

MCL is a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that strikes cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes. It is usually diagnosed in older men and often presents at an advanced stage. Multiple available treatments include rituximab/bendamustine, CAR-T cell therapy, stem cell transplants, and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Ibrutinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for refractory/relapsed cases, however.

Dr. Dreyling was a pioneer in confirming benefit from stem-cell transplants for MCL. “However,” he said, “no one likes autologous transplant because it also has side effects.”

For the new open-label study, Dr. Dreyling and colleagues in the European MCL Network in 2016 began recruiting patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage II-IV MCL. The patients were younger than 65.

The subjects were randomly assigned to three trial arms: Standard treatment (high-dose cytarabine followed by autologous stem cell transplant and rituximab maintenance, n = 288), the standard treatment plus ibrutinib (n = 292), and ibrutinib without stem cell transplant (n = 290). The median age was 57, and 76% of patients were male.

The primary endpoint was failure-free survival at 31 months. Standard therapy was not superior to the ibrutinib without transplant group (72% vs. 86%, respectively, P = .9979). However, standard therapy with ibrutinib was superior to the standard therapy group (88% vs. 72%, respectively, P = .0008). The researchers haven’t finished their analysis of standard therapy with ibrutinib vs. ibrutinib without transplant.

Subjects in the standard therapy plus ibrutinib arm had more grade 3-5 adverse events than did the standard therapy and ibrutinib without transplant groups: Neutropenia, 44%, 17%, and 23%, respectively; leukopenia, 4%, 2%, and 2%; febrile neutropenia, 6%, 3%, and 3%; infections and infestations, 25%, 13%, and 19%; and cardiac disorders, 3%, 1%, 4%. P values were not provided.

In an interview, Ohio State University hematologist Narendranath Epperla, MD, MS, who was not involved in the study, said that this research reflects efforts to understand how novel agents such as ibrutinib and cellular therapies fit into MCL treatment. “We are trying to incorporate them in the frontline setting with either chemo backbone or with other targeted agents to improve outcomes and minimize toxicity. We are also trying to understand in whom auto-HCT can be precluded.”

The results of the new study appear promising, Dr. Epperla said, but he questioned the primary endpoint (failure-free survival instead of progress-free survival) and the short duration of the trial.

“I would like to see how the patients with high-risk features such as TP53 mutation, complex cytogenetics, and blastoid/pleomorphic variants did on the three arms,” Dr. Epperla said. “And I would like to see longer follow-up data before adapting this – [addition] of ibrutinib to the chemotherapy backbone without auto-HCT – into clinical practice.”

What’s next? Dr. Dreyling said that upcoming data will provide further insight into ibrutinib vs. stem-cell transplantation. And “within the next half year or so,” he said, “there will be a next generation of studies challenging chemotherapy overall in mantle cell lymphoma and substituting targeted treatment, hopefully achieving much better tolerability.”

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Dreyling disclosed ties with Lilly/Loxo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Janssen, Gilead/Kite, BMS/Celgene, Bayer, Abbvie, and Beigene. The other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Epperla disclosed a relationship with Pharmacyclics.

NEW ORLEANS – Results of a new study could presage an end to the standard use of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for treating younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), a researcher told colleagues.

First-line patients fared well on ibrutinib, a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, according to the findings.

Courtesy ASH

“Based on the results so far ... at least for the majority of patients, ibrutinib early will become the new standard,” said study lead author Martin Dreyling, MD, associate professor of medicine at Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) Munich. Dr. Dreyling spoke in a news briefing and at a separate presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “It might well be that specific subsets of patients may benefit from autologous transplant.”

MCL is a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that strikes cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes. It is usually diagnosed in older men and often presents at an advanced stage. Multiple available treatments include rituximab/bendamustine, CAR-T cell therapy, stem cell transplants, and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Ibrutinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for refractory/relapsed cases, however.

Dr. Dreyling was a pioneer in confirming benefit from stem-cell transplants for MCL. “However,” he said, “no one likes autologous transplant because it also has side effects.”

For the new open-label study, Dr. Dreyling and colleagues in the European MCL Network in 2016 began recruiting patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage II-IV MCL. The patients were younger than 65.

The subjects were randomly assigned to three trial arms: Standard treatment (high-dose cytarabine followed by autologous stem cell transplant and rituximab maintenance, n = 288), the standard treatment plus ibrutinib (n = 292), and ibrutinib without stem cell transplant (n = 290). The median age was 57, and 76% of patients were male.

The primary endpoint was failure-free survival at 31 months. Standard therapy was not superior to the ibrutinib without transplant group (72% vs. 86%, respectively, P = .9979). However, standard therapy with ibrutinib was superior to the standard therapy group (88% vs. 72%, respectively, P = .0008). The researchers haven’t finished their analysis of standard therapy with ibrutinib vs. ibrutinib without transplant.

Subjects in the standard therapy plus ibrutinib arm had more grade 3-5 adverse events than did the standard therapy and ibrutinib without transplant groups: Neutropenia, 44%, 17%, and 23%, respectively; leukopenia, 4%, 2%, and 2%; febrile neutropenia, 6%, 3%, and 3%; infections and infestations, 25%, 13%, and 19%; and cardiac disorders, 3%, 1%, 4%. P values were not provided.

In an interview, Ohio State University hematologist Narendranath Epperla, MD, MS, who was not involved in the study, said that this research reflects efforts to understand how novel agents such as ibrutinib and cellular therapies fit into MCL treatment. “We are trying to incorporate them in the frontline setting with either chemo backbone or with other targeted agents to improve outcomes and minimize toxicity. We are also trying to understand in whom auto-HCT can be precluded.”

The results of the new study appear promising, Dr. Epperla said, but he questioned the primary endpoint (failure-free survival instead of progress-free survival) and the short duration of the trial.

“I would like to see how the patients with high-risk features such as TP53 mutation, complex cytogenetics, and blastoid/pleomorphic variants did on the three arms,” Dr. Epperla said. “And I would like to see longer follow-up data before adapting this – [addition] of ibrutinib to the chemotherapy backbone without auto-HCT – into clinical practice.”

What’s next? Dr. Dreyling said that upcoming data will provide further insight into ibrutinib vs. stem-cell transplantation. And “within the next half year or so,” he said, “there will be a next generation of studies challenging chemotherapy overall in mantle cell lymphoma and substituting targeted treatment, hopefully achieving much better tolerability.”

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Dreyling disclosed ties with Lilly/Loxo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Janssen, Gilead/Kite, BMS/Celgene, Bayer, Abbvie, and Beigene. The other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Epperla disclosed a relationship with Pharmacyclics.

NEW ORLEANS – Results of a new study could presage an end to the standard use of autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for treating younger patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), a researcher told colleagues.

First-line patients fared well on ibrutinib, a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor, according to the findings.

Courtesy ASH

“Based on the results so far ... at least for the majority of patients, ibrutinib early will become the new standard,” said study lead author Martin Dreyling, MD, associate professor of medicine at Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) Munich. Dr. Dreyling spoke in a news briefing and at a separate presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. “It might well be that specific subsets of patients may benefit from autologous transplant.”

MCL is a rare form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that strikes cells in the mantle zone of lymph nodes. It is usually diagnosed in older men and often presents at an advanced stage. Multiple available treatments include rituximab/bendamustine, CAR-T cell therapy, stem cell transplants, and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Ibrutinib is approved by the Food and Drug Administration only for refractory/relapsed cases, however.

Dr. Dreyling was a pioneer in confirming benefit from stem-cell transplants for MCL. “However,” he said, “no one likes autologous transplant because it also has side effects.”

For the new open-label study, Dr. Dreyling and colleagues in the European MCL Network in 2016 began recruiting patients with newly diagnosed, advanced stage II-IV MCL. The patients were younger than 65.

The subjects were randomly assigned to three trial arms: Standard treatment (high-dose cytarabine followed by autologous stem cell transplant and rituximab maintenance, n = 288), the standard treatment plus ibrutinib (n = 292), and ibrutinib without stem cell transplant (n = 290). The median age was 57, and 76% of patients were male.

The primary endpoint was failure-free survival at 31 months. Standard therapy was not superior to the ibrutinib without transplant group (72% vs. 86%, respectively, P = .9979). However, standard therapy with ibrutinib was superior to the standard therapy group (88% vs. 72%, respectively, P = .0008). The researchers haven’t finished their analysis of standard therapy with ibrutinib vs. ibrutinib without transplant.

Subjects in the standard therapy plus ibrutinib arm had more grade 3-5 adverse events than did the standard therapy and ibrutinib without transplant groups: Neutropenia, 44%, 17%, and 23%, respectively; leukopenia, 4%, 2%, and 2%; febrile neutropenia, 6%, 3%, and 3%; infections and infestations, 25%, 13%, and 19%; and cardiac disorders, 3%, 1%, 4%. P values were not provided.

In an interview, Ohio State University hematologist Narendranath Epperla, MD, MS, who was not involved in the study, said that this research reflects efforts to understand how novel agents such as ibrutinib and cellular therapies fit into MCL treatment. “We are trying to incorporate them in the frontline setting with either chemo backbone or with other targeted agents to improve outcomes and minimize toxicity. We are also trying to understand in whom auto-HCT can be precluded.”

The results of the new study appear promising, Dr. Epperla said, but he questioned the primary endpoint (failure-free survival instead of progress-free survival) and the short duration of the trial.

“I would like to see how the patients with high-risk features such as TP53 mutation, complex cytogenetics, and blastoid/pleomorphic variants did on the three arms,” Dr. Epperla said. “And I would like to see longer follow-up data before adapting this – [addition] of ibrutinib to the chemotherapy backbone without auto-HCT – into clinical practice.”

What’s next? Dr. Dreyling said that upcoming data will provide further insight into ibrutinib vs. stem-cell transplantation. And “within the next half year or so,” he said, “there will be a next generation of studies challenging chemotherapy overall in mantle cell lymphoma and substituting targeted treatment, hopefully achieving much better tolerability.”

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Dreyling disclosed ties with Lilly/Loxo, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Roche, Janssen, Gilead/Kite, BMS/Celgene, Bayer, Abbvie, and Beigene. The other study authors reported various disclosures. Dr. Epperla disclosed a relationship with Pharmacyclics.

In addition to the latest news in clinical care and drug development, some eyebrow-raising findings that challenge long-held, untested assumptions are promised from the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The conference starts in New Orleans on Saturday, Dec. 10, , but a sample of what is to come was given last week in a preview media briefing, moderated by Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami. Dr. Sekeres, who recently authored a book on the FDA and how it regulates drug approvals, also serves as chair of the ASH Committee on Communications.
 

“Feeding Our Patients Gruel”

Dr. Sekeres expressed particular excitement about a multicenter randomized trial done in Italy. It showed that patients who have neutropenia after a stem cell transplant need not be required to eat a bland diet (Abstract 169).

“We for years have been essentially feeding our patients gruel in the hospital, and these are folks who have to be hospitalized for a stem cell transplant or in my case – I’m a leukemia specialist – for acute leukemia, for 4-6 weeks. The neutropenic diet consists of the blandest food you can imagine, with nothing to really spice it up.”

He noted that a neutropenic diet is so unpalatable that family members often sneak food into patient rooms, and “for years we’ve never seen adverse outcomes in any of those folks who instead of having mashed potatoes and oatmeal ate a corned beef sandwich for dinner.”

Now, the results from this trial “actually give us license to finally allow patients to eat whatever they want,” Dr. Sekeres said.
 

Practice-changing data

ASH experts pointed to two more presentations that are expected to change clinical practice. These include the finding that high-dose methotrexate does not reduce the risk for central nervous system relapse in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma (Abstract 214).

Another new study that seems to defy conventional wisdom showed that in adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia, intensive chemotherapy in an effort to achieve remission before a stem cell transplant did not result in better outcomes, compared with sequential conditioning and immediate transplant (Abstract 4).
 

Premature aging in HL survivors

ASH President Jane N. Winter, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, who also spoke at the briefing, highlighted a study that followed adult survivors of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma. This study, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis and the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y), found that these adult survivors are at significantly elevated risk for epigenetic age acceleration accompanied by neurocognitive deficits when compared with controls (Abstract 902).

“This is an area that is very near and dear to my heart,” she said. “Much of my career has focused on reducing the therapy to reduce the long-term consequences of treatments. Pediatricians have been very much wedded to very intensive therapies and tend to incorporate radiation more commonly in their treatment strategies for children than we do in adults.”

Dr. Winter noted that, although clinicians focus primarily on the link between mediastinal radiation and long-term adverse events such as breast cancer, “now we’re shedding a light on the neurocognitive deficits, which I think are underappreciated. Being able to screen for this impact of our treatment, and perhaps then develop strategies to deal with it or prevent it, will have very wide-ranging impact.”
 

Inherited thrombophilia and miscarriage

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the translational stem cell biology branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., who also spoke at the briefing, said that one of the abstracts most important to her practice is a study concerning pregnancy. It showed that low-molecular-weight heparin did not prevent miscarriage in pregnant women with confirmed inherited thrombophilia who had two or more prior pregnancy losses, compared with standard surveillance (Abstract LBA-5).

“This is not my field at all; on the other hand, as a hematologist and a woman, that’s what my emails in the middle of the night and my panicked phone calls are often about. Once somebody has one miscarriage, especially if they feel like they’re already over 30 and the clock is ticking, there’s a huge emphasis and a huge amount of pressure on obstetricians to basically work up for everything, kind of a shotgun [approach],” she said.

Those workups may reveal genetic mutations that are associated with mild elevations in risk for clotting. As a result, some pregnant women are put on anticoagulation therapy, which can cause complications for both pregnancy and delivery. These study findings don’t solve the problem of spontaneous pregnancy loss, but they at least rule out inherited thrombophilia as a preventable cause of miscarriages, Dr. Dunbar said.

Another potentially practice-changing abstract is a study showing that, in younger adults with mantle cell lymphoma, the addition of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (Imbruvica) to induction therapy and as maintenance with or without autologous stem cell transplant had strong efficacy and acceptable toxicity (Abstract 1).

“The results show that the ibrutinib-containing regimen without transplant is at least as good as the current standard of care with transplant.” Dr. Winter said. “Additional follow-up will be required to show definitively that an autotransplant is unnecessary if ibrutinib is included in this treatment regimen.”

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

In addition to the latest news in clinical care and drug development, some eyebrow-raising findings that challenge long-held, untested assumptions are promised from the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The conference starts in New Orleans on Saturday, Dec. 10, , but a sample of what is to come was given last week in a preview media briefing, moderated by Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami. Dr. Sekeres, who recently authored a book on the FDA and how it regulates drug approvals, also serves as chair of the ASH Committee on Communications.
 

“Feeding Our Patients Gruel”

Dr. Sekeres expressed particular excitement about a multicenter randomized trial done in Italy. It showed that patients who have neutropenia after a stem cell transplant need not be required to eat a bland diet (Abstract 169).

“We for years have been essentially feeding our patients gruel in the hospital, and these are folks who have to be hospitalized for a stem cell transplant or in my case – I’m a leukemia specialist – for acute leukemia, for 4-6 weeks. The neutropenic diet consists of the blandest food you can imagine, with nothing to really spice it up.”

He noted that a neutropenic diet is so unpalatable that family members often sneak food into patient rooms, and “for years we’ve never seen adverse outcomes in any of those folks who instead of having mashed potatoes and oatmeal ate a corned beef sandwich for dinner.”

Now, the results from this trial “actually give us license to finally allow patients to eat whatever they want,” Dr. Sekeres said.
 

Practice-changing data

ASH experts pointed to two more presentations that are expected to change clinical practice. These include the finding that high-dose methotrexate does not reduce the risk for central nervous system relapse in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma (Abstract 214).

Another new study that seems to defy conventional wisdom showed that in adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia, intensive chemotherapy in an effort to achieve remission before a stem cell transplant did not result in better outcomes, compared with sequential conditioning and immediate transplant (Abstract 4).
 

Premature aging in HL survivors

ASH President Jane N. Winter, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, who also spoke at the briefing, highlighted a study that followed adult survivors of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma. This study, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis and the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y), found that these adult survivors are at significantly elevated risk for epigenetic age acceleration accompanied by neurocognitive deficits when compared with controls (Abstract 902).

“This is an area that is very near and dear to my heart,” she said. “Much of my career has focused on reducing the therapy to reduce the long-term consequences of treatments. Pediatricians have been very much wedded to very intensive therapies and tend to incorporate radiation more commonly in their treatment strategies for children than we do in adults.”

Dr. Winter noted that, although clinicians focus primarily on the link between mediastinal radiation and long-term adverse events such as breast cancer, “now we’re shedding a light on the neurocognitive deficits, which I think are underappreciated. Being able to screen for this impact of our treatment, and perhaps then develop strategies to deal with it or prevent it, will have very wide-ranging impact.”
 

Inherited thrombophilia and miscarriage

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the translational stem cell biology branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., who also spoke at the briefing, said that one of the abstracts most important to her practice is a study concerning pregnancy. It showed that low-molecular-weight heparin did not prevent miscarriage in pregnant women with confirmed inherited thrombophilia who had two or more prior pregnancy losses, compared with standard surveillance (Abstract LBA-5).

“This is not my field at all; on the other hand, as a hematologist and a woman, that’s what my emails in the middle of the night and my panicked phone calls are often about. Once somebody has one miscarriage, especially if they feel like they’re already over 30 and the clock is ticking, there’s a huge emphasis and a huge amount of pressure on obstetricians to basically work up for everything, kind of a shotgun [approach],” she said.

Those workups may reveal genetic mutations that are associated with mild elevations in risk for clotting. As a result, some pregnant women are put on anticoagulation therapy, which can cause complications for both pregnancy and delivery. These study findings don’t solve the problem of spontaneous pregnancy loss, but they at least rule out inherited thrombophilia as a preventable cause of miscarriages, Dr. Dunbar said.

Another potentially practice-changing abstract is a study showing that, in younger adults with mantle cell lymphoma, the addition of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (Imbruvica) to induction therapy and as maintenance with or without autologous stem cell transplant had strong efficacy and acceptable toxicity (Abstract 1).

“The results show that the ibrutinib-containing regimen without transplant is at least as good as the current standard of care with transplant.” Dr. Winter said. “Additional follow-up will be required to show definitively that an autotransplant is unnecessary if ibrutinib is included in this treatment regimen.”

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

In addition to the latest news in clinical care and drug development, some eyebrow-raising findings that challenge long-held, untested assumptions are promised from the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

The conference starts in New Orleans on Saturday, Dec. 10, , but a sample of what is to come was given last week in a preview media briefing, moderated by Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, from the University of Miami. Dr. Sekeres, who recently authored a book on the FDA and how it regulates drug approvals, also serves as chair of the ASH Committee on Communications.
 

“Feeding Our Patients Gruel”

Dr. Sekeres expressed particular excitement about a multicenter randomized trial done in Italy. It showed that patients who have neutropenia after a stem cell transplant need not be required to eat a bland diet (Abstract 169).

“We for years have been essentially feeding our patients gruel in the hospital, and these are folks who have to be hospitalized for a stem cell transplant or in my case – I’m a leukemia specialist – for acute leukemia, for 4-6 weeks. The neutropenic diet consists of the blandest food you can imagine, with nothing to really spice it up.”

He noted that a neutropenic diet is so unpalatable that family members often sneak food into patient rooms, and “for years we’ve never seen adverse outcomes in any of those folks who instead of having mashed potatoes and oatmeal ate a corned beef sandwich for dinner.”

Now, the results from this trial “actually give us license to finally allow patients to eat whatever they want,” Dr. Sekeres said.
 

Practice-changing data

ASH experts pointed to two more presentations that are expected to change clinical practice. These include the finding that high-dose methotrexate does not reduce the risk for central nervous system relapse in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoblastic lymphoma (Abstract 214).

Another new study that seems to defy conventional wisdom showed that in adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia, intensive chemotherapy in an effort to achieve remission before a stem cell transplant did not result in better outcomes, compared with sequential conditioning and immediate transplant (Abstract 4).
 

Premature aging in HL survivors

ASH President Jane N. Winter, MD, from Northwestern University, Chicago, who also spoke at the briefing, highlighted a study that followed adult survivors of pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma. This study, from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis and the Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y), found that these adult survivors are at significantly elevated risk for epigenetic age acceleration accompanied by neurocognitive deficits when compared with controls (Abstract 902).

“This is an area that is very near and dear to my heart,” she said. “Much of my career has focused on reducing the therapy to reduce the long-term consequences of treatments. Pediatricians have been very much wedded to very intensive therapies and tend to incorporate radiation more commonly in their treatment strategies for children than we do in adults.”

Dr. Winter noted that, although clinicians focus primarily on the link between mediastinal radiation and long-term adverse events such as breast cancer, “now we’re shedding a light on the neurocognitive deficits, which I think are underappreciated. Being able to screen for this impact of our treatment, and perhaps then develop strategies to deal with it or prevent it, will have very wide-ranging impact.”
 

Inherited thrombophilia and miscarriage

Cynthia E. Dunbar, MD, chief of the translational stem cell biology branch at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., who also spoke at the briefing, said that one of the abstracts most important to her practice is a study concerning pregnancy. It showed that low-molecular-weight heparin did not prevent miscarriage in pregnant women with confirmed inherited thrombophilia who had two or more prior pregnancy losses, compared with standard surveillance (Abstract LBA-5).

“This is not my field at all; on the other hand, as a hematologist and a woman, that’s what my emails in the middle of the night and my panicked phone calls are often about. Once somebody has one miscarriage, especially if they feel like they’re already over 30 and the clock is ticking, there’s a huge emphasis and a huge amount of pressure on obstetricians to basically work up for everything, kind of a shotgun [approach],” she said.

Those workups may reveal genetic mutations that are associated with mild elevations in risk for clotting. As a result, some pregnant women are put on anticoagulation therapy, which can cause complications for both pregnancy and delivery. These study findings don’t solve the problem of spontaneous pregnancy loss, but they at least rule out inherited thrombophilia as a preventable cause of miscarriages, Dr. Dunbar said.

Another potentially practice-changing abstract is a study showing that, in younger adults with mantle cell lymphoma, the addition of the Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib (Imbruvica) to induction therapy and as maintenance with or without autologous stem cell transplant had strong efficacy and acceptable toxicity (Abstract 1).

“The results show that the ibrutinib-containing regimen without transplant is at least as good as the current standard of care with transplant.” Dr. Winter said. “Additional follow-up will be required to show definitively that an autotransplant is unnecessary if ibrutinib is included in this treatment regimen.”

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