Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the US and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

Using US Department of Agriculture population classifications known as Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, the researchers categorized the patients as either rural or urban and analyzed their outcomes.

A minority of patients (19.4%, n=7184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than urban patients to be 65 or older (P<0.001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs all other races; P<0.001).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in sex (P=0.53), and all major US geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

Results

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P=0.008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P=0.02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers believe this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.91 (95% CI, 0.64-1.29; P=0.60)
• AML—HR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; P=0.29)
• MM—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.93-1.18, P=0.46)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P=0.60).

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.98 (95% CI, 0.66-1.45; P=0.90)
• AML—HR=1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P=0.87)
• MM—HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.20; P=0.60)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.08 (95% CI, 0.87-1.34; P=0.50).

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drive the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr Unger said.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the US and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

Using US Department of Agriculture population classifications known as Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, the researchers categorized the patients as either rural or urban and analyzed their outcomes.

A minority of patients (19.4%, n=7184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than urban patients to be 65 or older (P<0.001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs all other races; P<0.001).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in sex (P=0.53), and all major US geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

Results

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P=0.008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P=0.02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers believe this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.91 (95% CI, 0.64-1.29; P=0.60)
• AML—HR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; P=0.29)
• MM—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.93-1.18, P=0.46)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P=0.60).

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.98 (95% CI, 0.66-1.45; P=0.90)
• AML—HR=1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P=0.87)
• MM—HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.20; P=0.60)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.08 (95% CI, 0.87-1.34; P=0.50).

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drive the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr Unger said.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Rhoda Baer

New research suggests that better access to quality care may reduce disparities in survival between cancer patients living in rural areas of the US and those living in urban areas.

The study showed that urban and rural cancer patients had similar survival outcomes when they were enrolled in clinical trials.

These results, published in JAMA Network Open, cast new light on decades of research showing that cancer patients living in rural areas don’t live as long as urban cancer patients.

“These findings were a surprise, since we thought we might find the same disparities others had found,” said study author Joseph Unger, PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington.

“But clinical trials are a key difference here. In trials, patients are uniformly assessed, treated, and followed under a strict, guideline-driven protocol. This suggests that giving people with cancer access to uniform treatment strategies could help resolve the disparities in outcomes that we see between rural and urban patients.”

Dr Unger and his colleagues studied data on 36,995 patients who were enrolled in 44 phase 3 or phase 2/3 SWOG trials from 1986 through 2012. All 50 states were represented.

Patients had 17 different cancer types, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), and multiple myeloma (MM).

Using US Department of Agriculture population classifications known as Rural-Urban Continuum Codes, the researchers categorized the patients as either rural or urban and analyzed their outcomes.

A minority of patients (19.4%, n=7184) were from rural locations. They were significantly more likely than urban patients to be 65 or older (P<0.001) and significantly less likely to be black (vs all other races; P<0.001).

However, there was no significant between-group difference in sex (P=0.53), and all major US geographic regions (West, Midwest, South, and Northeast) were represented.

Results

The researchers limited their analysis of survival to the first 5 years after trial enrollment to emphasize outcomes related to cancer and its treatment. They looked at overall survival (OS) as well as cancer-specific survival.

The team found no meaningful difference in OS or cancer-specific survival between rural and urban patients for 16 of the 17 cancer types.

The exception was estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer. Rural patients with this cancer didn’t live as long as their urban counterparts. The hazard ratio (HR) was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.06-1.51; P=0.008) for OS and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P=0.02) for cancer-specific survival.

The researchers believe this finding could be attributed to a few factors, including timely access to follow-up chemotherapy after patients’ first round of cancer treatment.

Although there were no significant survival differences for patients with hematologic malignancies, rural patients had slightly better OS if they had advanced indolent NHL or AML but slightly worse OS if they had MM or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.91 (95% CI, 0.64-1.29; P=0.60)
• AML—HR=0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; P=0.29)
• MM—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.93-1.18, P=0.46)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P=0.60).

Rural patients had slightly better cancer-specific survival if they had advanced indolent NHL but slightly worse cancer-specific survival if they had AML, MM, or advanced aggressive NHL. The HRs were as follows:

• Advanced indolent NHL—HR=0.98 (95% CI, 0.66-1.45; P=0.90)
• AML—HR=1.01 (95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P=0.87)
• MM—HR=1.04 (95% CI, 0.90-1.20; P=0.60)
• Advanced aggressive NHL—HR=1.08 (95% CI, 0.87-1.34; P=0.50).

The researchers said these findings suggest it is access to care, and not other characteristics, that drive the survival disparities typically observed between urban and rural cancer patients.

“If people diagnosed with cancer, regardless of where they live, receive similar care and have similar outcomes, then a reasonable inference is that the best way to improve outcomes for rural patients is to improve their access to quality care,” Dr Unger said.

This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the HOPE Foundation. The researchers reported financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Image by Michael Bonert

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation to CPI-613 for the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

CPI-613 is a novel lipoic acid analogue that inhibits multiple enzyme targets within the tricarboxylic acid cycle.

Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is developing CPI-613 as a treatment for hematologic malignancies and solid tumors.

CPI-613 is currently under investigation in combination with bendamustine in a phase 1 study of patients with relapsed or refractory T-cell lymphoma or classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

Results from this trial were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.*

CPI-613 was given at escalating doses starting at 2000 mg/m² over 2 hours on days 1-4 as well as on days 8, 11, 15, and 18. Bendamustine was infused at 90 mg/m² on days 4 and 5 of each 4-week treatment cycle. The treatment cycles were repeated for up to 6 cycles. There was no intra-patient dose-escalation.

The ASH presentation included safety data on 8 patients. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities—lymphopenia and neutropenia—occurred in 4 patients.

A patient dosed at 2750 mg/m² had a dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 acute kidney injury and grade 4 lactic acidosis. Because of this, the study protocol was amended to discontinue dose-escalation at doses of 2750 mg/m² or higher and to expand the 2500 mg/m² cohort.

Six patients were evaluable for efficacy, and the overall response rate was 83% (5/6).

There were 3 complete responses in patients with PTCL not otherwise specified, a partial response in a patient with mycosis fungoides, and a partial response in a patient with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.

One patient with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia experienced progressive disease.

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.

The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

*The data presented differ from the abstract.

Image by Michael Bonert

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation to CPI-613 for the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

CPI-613 is a novel lipoic acid analogue that inhibits multiple enzyme targets within the tricarboxylic acid cycle.

Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is developing CPI-613 as a treatment for hematologic malignancies and solid tumors.

CPI-613 is currently under investigation in combination with bendamustine in a phase 1 study of patients with relapsed or refractory T-cell lymphoma or classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

Results from this trial were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.*

CPI-613 was given at escalating doses starting at 2000 mg/m² over 2 hours on days 1-4 as well as on days 8, 11, 15, and 18. Bendamustine was infused at 90 mg/m² on days 4 and 5 of each 4-week treatment cycle. The treatment cycles were repeated for up to 6 cycles. There was no intra-patient dose-escalation.

The ASH presentation included safety data on 8 patients. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities—lymphopenia and neutropenia—occurred in 4 patients.

A patient dosed at 2750 mg/m² had a dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 acute kidney injury and grade 4 lactic acidosis. Because of this, the study protocol was amended to discontinue dose-escalation at doses of 2750 mg/m² or higher and to expand the 2500 mg/m² cohort.

Six patients were evaluable for efficacy, and the overall response rate was 83% (5/6).

There were 3 complete responses in patients with PTCL not otherwise specified, a partial response in a patient with mycosis fungoides, and a partial response in a patient with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.

One patient with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia experienced progressive disease.

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.

The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

*The data presented differ from the abstract.

Image by Michael Bonert

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation to CPI-613 for the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).

CPI-613 is a novel lipoic acid analogue that inhibits multiple enzyme targets within the tricarboxylic acid cycle.

Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is developing CPI-613 as a treatment for hematologic malignancies and solid tumors.

CPI-613 is currently under investigation in combination with bendamustine in a phase 1 study of patients with relapsed or refractory T-cell lymphoma or classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

Results from this trial were presented at the 2016 ASH Annual Meeting.*

CPI-613 was given at escalating doses starting at 2000 mg/m² over 2 hours on days 1-4 as well as on days 8, 11, 15, and 18. Bendamustine was infused at 90 mg/m² on days 4 and 5 of each 4-week treatment cycle. The treatment cycles were repeated for up to 6 cycles. There was no intra-patient dose-escalation.

The ASH presentation included safety data on 8 patients. The most common grade 3 or higher toxicities—lymphopenia and neutropenia—occurred in 4 patients.

A patient dosed at 2750 mg/m² had a dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 acute kidney injury and grade 4 lactic acidosis. Because of this, the study protocol was amended to discontinue dose-escalation at doses of 2750 mg/m² or higher and to expand the 2500 mg/m² cohort.

Six patients were evaluable for efficacy, and the overall response rate was 83% (5/6).

There were 3 complete responses in patients with PTCL not otherwise specified, a partial response in a patient with mycosis fungoides, and a partial response in a patient with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma.

One patient with T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia experienced progressive disease.

About orphan designation

The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the US.

The designation provides incentives for sponsors to develop products for rare diseases. This may include tax credits toward the cost of clinical trials, prescription drug user fee waivers, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.

*The data presented differ from the abstract.

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to a 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Joseph Mock, MD, of the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and his colleagues.

Their report was published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting, but the authors suggested this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria,” the researchers wrote. “These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice.”

The researchers conducted a review of patients treated within the University of Virginia Health System between January 2012 and May 2016.

The team identified 70 patients, with an average age of 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%), mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (1%).

Bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis.

However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3 or higher, occurred in 19% of patients (n=13). Seven of these patients were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, 4 were taking antiplatelet agents alone, 1 was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and 1 was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding were antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the 2 medications, interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL), and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR, > 1.5).

In a multivariate analysis, only the following factors were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding:

• Concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulant use—hazard ratio=20.0 (95% CI, 2.1-200.0; P=0.0005) vs no antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy
• Elevated INR—hazard ratio=4.6 (95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P=0.0409).

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, the team said their findings confirm “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.”

They noted that this study was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive.”

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to a 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Joseph Mock, MD, of the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and his colleagues.

Their report was published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting, but the authors suggested this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria,” the researchers wrote. “These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice.”

The researchers conducted a review of patients treated within the University of Virginia Health System between January 2012 and May 2016.

The team identified 70 patients, with an average age of 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%), mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (1%).

Bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis.

However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3 or higher, occurred in 19% of patients (n=13). Seven of these patients were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, 4 were taking antiplatelet agents alone, 1 was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and 1 was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding were antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the 2 medications, interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL), and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR, > 1.5).

In a multivariate analysis, only the following factors were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding:

• Concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulant use—hazard ratio=20.0 (95% CI, 2.1-200.0; P=0.0005) vs no antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy
• Elevated INR—hazard ratio=4.6 (95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P=0.0409).

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, the team said their findings confirm “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.”

They noted that this study was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive.”

Photo courtesy of Janssen

The Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has been linked to a 20-fold increased risk of major bleeding in blood cancer patients taking concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy in a clinical setting.

Caution should be used when weighing the risks and benefits of ibrutinib for patients already taking antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy, or both, wrote Joseph Mock, MD, of the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville, and his colleagues.

Their report was published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia.

Ibrutinib had been associated with an increased risk of bleeding, albeit low, in the clinical trial setting, but the authors suggested this rate could be higher in everyday clinical practice.

“Much of the information [from clinical trials] on the bleeding risk with ibrutinib, included pooled analyses, was from patients exclusively treated in clinical trials with specific exclusion criteria,” the researchers wrote. “These criteria have generally excluded patients with significant comorbidities. However, these patients are seen in clinical practice.”

The researchers conducted a review of patients treated within the University of Virginia Health System between January 2012 and May 2016.

The team identified 70 patients, with an average age of 72, who were taking ibrutinib for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (64%), mantle cell lymphoma (27%), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (4%), lymphoblastic lymphoma (3%), and Waldenström’s macroglobulinemia (1%).

Bleeding of any grade occurred in 56% of patients, mostly grade 1-2 bruising and epistaxis.

However, major bleeding, defined as grade 3 or higher, occurred in 19% of patients (n=13). Seven of these patients were taking combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, 4 were taking antiplatelet agents alone, 1 was taking an anticoagulant agent alone, and 1 was taking only ibrutinib.

Univariate analysis showed that the factors associated with an increased risk of major bleeding were antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication, the combination of the 2 medications, interacting medications, anemia (hemoglobin less than 12 g/dL), and an elevated international normalized ratio (INR, > 1.5).

In a multivariate analysis, only the following factors were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding:

• Concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulant use—hazard ratio=20.0 (95% CI, 2.1-200.0; P=0.0005) vs no antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy
• Elevated INR—hazard ratio=4.6 (95% CI, 1.1-19.6; P=0.0409).

The researchers said the risk of major bleeding in patients taking both antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was “unacceptably high” and “medications other than ibrutinib should be considered” in this patient population.

Overall, the team said their findings confirm “the increasingly recognized risk of major bleeding complications with ibrutinib compared with what was originally reported in the clinical trial setting.”

They noted that this study was limited by the relatively small population size. Their finding that platelet count was not associated with bleeding risk was also “counterintuitive.”

Photo by Larry Young

Mogamulizumab is an effective treatment option for relapsed/refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), according to researchers.

In the phase 3 MAVORIC trial, mogamulizumab prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and produced better overall response rates (ORRs) than vorinostat in patients with relapsed/refractory CTCL.

The most common adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with mogamulizumab were infusion-related reactions, diarrhea, fatigue, and drug eruptions.

Youn Kim MD, of the Stanford Cancer Institute in Palo Alto, California, and her colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Oncology.

The results supported the recent approval of mogamulizumab by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The study was sponsored by Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., the company developing/marketing mogamulizumab.

Treatment

For MAVORIC, researchers compared mogamulizumab and vorinostat in adults with mycosis fungoides (MF) or Sézary syndrome (SS) who had received at least 1 prior systemic therapy.

The trial included 372 patients who were randomized to receive mogamulizumab at 1.0 mg/kg (weekly for the first cycle and then every 2 weeks) or vorinostat at 400 mg daily for 28-day cycles.

Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients on vorinostat who progressed or experienced intolerable toxicity after 2 cycles, despite dose reduction and appropriate management of AEs, could cross over to treatment with mogamulizumab.

There were 184 patients in the mogamulizumab arm and 186 in the vorinostat arm who received treatment.

The median duration of follow-up was 17.0 months.

Most patients (n=157) ultimately discontinued mogamulizumab. Reasons included:

• Disease progression (n=76 by CTCL criteria and 22 by clinical criteria)
• AEs (n=28)
• Withdrawn consent (n=13)
• Investigator decision (n=9)
• Patient decision (n=6)
• Death (n=2)
• Noncompliance (n=1).

Most patients (n=136) in the vorinostat arm crossed over to the mogamulizumab arm, 109 due to disease progression and 27 due to treatment intolerance.

Of the 40 patients who did not cross over to mogamulizumab, reasons for stopping vorinostat included:

• Progressive disease (n=10 by CTCL criteria and 8 by clinical criteria)
• Patient decision (n=9)
• Withdrawn consent (n=5)
• AEs (n=5)
• Death (n=2)
• Lost to follow-up (n=1).

At the data cutoff, there were 27 patients assigned to mogamulizumab and 10 assigned to vorinostat who remained on treatment. There were 31 patients still on treatment who had crossed over from vorinostat to mogamulizumab.

Patient characteristics

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.

PFS and ORR

Mogamulizumab provided a significant improvement in PFS, the study’s primary endpoint.

According to investigators, the median PFS was 7.7 months with mogamulizumab and 3.1 months with vorinostat (hazard ratio=0.53, P<0.0001).

According to independent review, the median PFS was 6.7 months and 3.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio=0.64, P<0.0007).

There was a significant improvement in ORR with mogamulizumab.

According to independent review, the global ORR was 23% (43/186) in the mogamulizumab arm and 4% (7/186) in the vorinostat arm (risk ratio=19.4, P<0.0001).

According to investigators, the global ORR was 28% (52/186) and 5% (9/186), respectively (risk ratio=23.1, P<0.0001).

For patients with MF, the investigator-assessed ORR was 21% (22/105) with mogamulizumab and 7% (7/99) with vorinostat.

For SS patients, the investigator-assessed ORR was 37% (30/81) and 2% (2/87), respectively.

Responses by disease compartment were superior with mogamulizumab as well.

The investigator-assessed blood ORR was 68% (83/122) with mogamulizumab and 19% (23/123) with vorinostat. The skin ORR was 42% (78/186) and 16% (29/186), respectively.

The lymph node ORR was 17% (21/124) and 4% (5/122), respectively. The viscera ORR was 0% in both arms.

Crossover

Among patients who crossed over from vorinostat to mogamulizumab, the ORR was 31% (41/133). In these patients, the median PFS was 8.9 months.

In the 319 patients who were assigned to mogamulizumab or crossed over to that arm, the median PFS was 8.4 months.

Safety

The most common treatment-emergent, grade 1-2 AEs, occurring in at least 20% of patients in either arm (mogamulizumab and vorinostat, respectively), were:

• Thrombocytopenia (14% vs 34%)
• Diarrhea (23% vs 57%)
• Nausea (15% vs 41%)
• Fatigue (22% vs 32%)
• Increased blood creatinine (3% vs 28%)
• Decreased appetite (7% vs 24%)
• Dysgeusia (3% vs 28%)
• Drug eruptions (20% vs 1%)
• Infusion-related reactions (32% vs 1%).

Grade 3 AEs in the mogamulizumab arm included drug eruptions (n=8), hypertension (n=8), pneumonia (n=6), fatigue (n=3), cellulitis (n=3), infusion-related reactions (n=3), sepsis (n=2), decreased appetite (n=2), AST increase (n=2), weight decrease (n=1), pyrexia (n=1), constipation (n=1), nausea (n=1), and diarrhea (n=1).

Grade 4 AEs with mogamulizumab were cellulitis (n=1) and pneumonia (n=1). Grade 5 AEs included pneumonia (n=1) and sepsis (n=1).

Photo by Larry Young

Mogamulizumab is an effective treatment option for relapsed/refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), according to researchers.

In the phase 3 MAVORIC trial, mogamulizumab prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and produced better overall response rates (ORRs) than vorinostat in patients with relapsed/refractory CTCL.

The most common adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with mogamulizumab were infusion-related reactions, diarrhea, fatigue, and drug eruptions.

Youn Kim MD, of the Stanford Cancer Institute in Palo Alto, California, and her colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Oncology.

The results supported the recent approval of mogamulizumab by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The study was sponsored by Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., the company developing/marketing mogamulizumab.

Treatment

For MAVORIC, researchers compared mogamulizumab and vorinostat in adults with mycosis fungoides (MF) or Sézary syndrome (SS) who had received at least 1 prior systemic therapy.

The trial included 372 patients who were randomized to receive mogamulizumab at 1.0 mg/kg (weekly for the first cycle and then every 2 weeks) or vorinostat at 400 mg daily for 28-day cycles.

Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients on vorinostat who progressed or experienced intolerable toxicity after 2 cycles, despite dose reduction and appropriate management of AEs, could cross over to treatment with mogamulizumab.

There were 184 patients in the mogamulizumab arm and 186 in the vorinostat arm who received treatment.

The median duration of follow-up was 17.0 months.

Most patients (n=157) ultimately discontinued mogamulizumab. Reasons included:

• Disease progression (n=76 by CTCL criteria and 22 by clinical criteria)
• AEs (n=28)
• Withdrawn consent (n=13)
• Investigator decision (n=9)
• Patient decision (n=6)
• Death (n=2)
• Noncompliance (n=1).

Most patients (n=136) in the vorinostat arm crossed over to the mogamulizumab arm, 109 due to disease progression and 27 due to treatment intolerance.

Of the 40 patients who did not cross over to mogamulizumab, reasons for stopping vorinostat included:

• Progressive disease (n=10 by CTCL criteria and 8 by clinical criteria)
• Patient decision (n=9)
• Withdrawn consent (n=5)
• AEs (n=5)
• Death (n=2)
• Lost to follow-up (n=1).

At the data cutoff, there were 27 patients assigned to mogamulizumab and 10 assigned to vorinostat who remained on treatment. There were 31 patients still on treatment who had crossed over from vorinostat to mogamulizumab.

Patient characteristics

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.

PFS and ORR

Mogamulizumab provided a significant improvement in PFS, the study’s primary endpoint.

According to investigators, the median PFS was 7.7 months with mogamulizumab and 3.1 months with vorinostat (hazard ratio=0.53, P<0.0001).

According to independent review, the median PFS was 6.7 months and 3.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio=0.64, P<0.0007).

There was a significant improvement in ORR with mogamulizumab.

According to independent review, the global ORR was 23% (43/186) in the mogamulizumab arm and 4% (7/186) in the vorinostat arm (risk ratio=19.4, P<0.0001).

According to investigators, the global ORR was 28% (52/186) and 5% (9/186), respectively (risk ratio=23.1, P<0.0001).

For patients with MF, the investigator-assessed ORR was 21% (22/105) with mogamulizumab and 7% (7/99) with vorinostat.

For SS patients, the investigator-assessed ORR was 37% (30/81) and 2% (2/87), respectively.

Responses by disease compartment were superior with mogamulizumab as well.

The investigator-assessed blood ORR was 68% (83/122) with mogamulizumab and 19% (23/123) with vorinostat. The skin ORR was 42% (78/186) and 16% (29/186), respectively.

The lymph node ORR was 17% (21/124) and 4% (5/122), respectively. The viscera ORR was 0% in both arms.

Crossover

Among patients who crossed over from vorinostat to mogamulizumab, the ORR was 31% (41/133). In these patients, the median PFS was 8.9 months.

In the 319 patients who were assigned to mogamulizumab or crossed over to that arm, the median PFS was 8.4 months.

Safety

The most common treatment-emergent, grade 1-2 AEs, occurring in at least 20% of patients in either arm (mogamulizumab and vorinostat, respectively), were:

• Thrombocytopenia (14% vs 34%)
• Diarrhea (23% vs 57%)
• Nausea (15% vs 41%)
• Fatigue (22% vs 32%)
• Increased blood creatinine (3% vs 28%)
• Decreased appetite (7% vs 24%)
• Dysgeusia (3% vs 28%)
• Drug eruptions (20% vs 1%)
• Infusion-related reactions (32% vs 1%).

Grade 3 AEs in the mogamulizumab arm included drug eruptions (n=8), hypertension (n=8), pneumonia (n=6), fatigue (n=3), cellulitis (n=3), infusion-related reactions (n=3), sepsis (n=2), decreased appetite (n=2), AST increase (n=2), weight decrease (n=1), pyrexia (n=1), constipation (n=1), nausea (n=1), and diarrhea (n=1).

Grade 4 AEs with mogamulizumab were cellulitis (n=1) and pneumonia (n=1). Grade 5 AEs included pneumonia (n=1) and sepsis (n=1).

Photo by Larry Young

Mogamulizumab is an effective treatment option for relapsed/refractory cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), according to researchers.

In the phase 3 MAVORIC trial, mogamulizumab prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and produced better overall response rates (ORRs) than vorinostat in patients with relapsed/refractory CTCL.

The most common adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with mogamulizumab were infusion-related reactions, diarrhea, fatigue, and drug eruptions.

Youn Kim MD, of the Stanford Cancer Institute in Palo Alto, California, and her colleagues reported these results in The Lancet Oncology.

The results supported the recent approval of mogamulizumab by the US Food and Drug Administration.

The study was sponsored by Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd., the company developing/marketing mogamulizumab.

Treatment

For MAVORIC, researchers compared mogamulizumab and vorinostat in adults with mycosis fungoides (MF) or Sézary syndrome (SS) who had received at least 1 prior systemic therapy.

The trial included 372 patients who were randomized to receive mogamulizumab at 1.0 mg/kg (weekly for the first cycle and then every 2 weeks) or vorinostat at 400 mg daily for 28-day cycles.

Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients on vorinostat who progressed or experienced intolerable toxicity after 2 cycles, despite dose reduction and appropriate management of AEs, could cross over to treatment with mogamulizumab.

There were 184 patients in the mogamulizumab arm and 186 in the vorinostat arm who received treatment.

The median duration of follow-up was 17.0 months.

Most patients (n=157) ultimately discontinued mogamulizumab. Reasons included:

• Disease progression (n=76 by CTCL criteria and 22 by clinical criteria)
• AEs (n=28)
• Withdrawn consent (n=13)
• Investigator decision (n=9)
• Patient decision (n=6)
• Death (n=2)
• Noncompliance (n=1).

Most patients (n=136) in the vorinostat arm crossed over to the mogamulizumab arm, 109 due to disease progression and 27 due to treatment intolerance.

Of the 40 patients who did not cross over to mogamulizumab, reasons for stopping vorinostat included:

• Progressive disease (n=10 by CTCL criteria and 8 by clinical criteria)
• Patient decision (n=9)
• Withdrawn consent (n=5)
• AEs (n=5)
• Death (n=2)
• Lost to follow-up (n=1).

At the data cutoff, there were 27 patients assigned to mogamulizumab and 10 assigned to vorinostat who remained on treatment. There were 31 patients still on treatment who had crossed over from vorinostat to mogamulizumab.

Patient characteristics

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.

PFS and ORR

Mogamulizumab provided a significant improvement in PFS, the study’s primary endpoint.

According to investigators, the median PFS was 7.7 months with mogamulizumab and 3.1 months with vorinostat (hazard ratio=0.53, P<0.0001).

According to independent review, the median PFS was 6.7 months and 3.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio=0.64, P<0.0007).

There was a significant improvement in ORR with mogamulizumab.

According to independent review, the global ORR was 23% (43/186) in the mogamulizumab arm and 4% (7/186) in the vorinostat arm (risk ratio=19.4, P<0.0001).

According to investigators, the global ORR was 28% (52/186) and 5% (9/186), respectively (risk ratio=23.1, P<0.0001).

For patients with MF, the investigator-assessed ORR was 21% (22/105) with mogamulizumab and 7% (7/99) with vorinostat.

For SS patients, the investigator-assessed ORR was 37% (30/81) and 2% (2/87), respectively.

Responses by disease compartment were superior with mogamulizumab as well.

The investigator-assessed blood ORR was 68% (83/122) with mogamulizumab and 19% (23/123) with vorinostat. The skin ORR was 42% (78/186) and 16% (29/186), respectively.

The lymph node ORR was 17% (21/124) and 4% (5/122), respectively. The viscera ORR was 0% in both arms.

Crossover

Among patients who crossed over from vorinostat to mogamulizumab, the ORR was 31% (41/133). In these patients, the median PFS was 8.9 months.

In the 319 patients who were assigned to mogamulizumab or crossed over to that arm, the median PFS was 8.4 months.

Safety

The most common treatment-emergent, grade 1-2 AEs, occurring in at least 20% of patients in either arm (mogamulizumab and vorinostat, respectively), were:

• Thrombocytopenia (14% vs 34%)
• Diarrhea (23% vs 57%)
• Nausea (15% vs 41%)
• Fatigue (22% vs 32%)
• Increased blood creatinine (3% vs 28%)
• Decreased appetite (7% vs 24%)
• Dysgeusia (3% vs 28%)
• Drug eruptions (20% vs 1%)
• Infusion-related reactions (32% vs 1%).

Grade 3 AEs in the mogamulizumab arm included drug eruptions (n=8), hypertension (n=8), pneumonia (n=6), fatigue (n=3), cellulitis (n=3), infusion-related reactions (n=3), sepsis (n=2), decreased appetite (n=2), AST increase (n=2), weight decrease (n=1), pyrexia (n=1), constipation (n=1), nausea (n=1), and diarrhea (n=1).

Grade 4 AEs with mogamulizumab were cellulitis (n=1) and pneumonia (n=1). Grade 5 AEs included pneumonia (n=1) and sepsis (n=1).

Photo by Luis Alvaz

Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) for lymphoma or myeloma have an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to a retrospective study.

The study suggested these patients have 10 to 100 times the risk of AML or MDS as the general population.

The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar lymphoma and myeloma patients largely untreated with auto-HSCT.

Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia Research.

The investigators noted that exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation—both used in auto-HSCT—is known to increase the risk of AML and MDS.

With this in mind, the team analyzed data on auto-HSCT recipients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).

Analyses were based on 9028 patients undergoing auto-HSCT from 1995 to 2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (n=916), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=3546), or plasma cell myeloma (n=4566). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.

Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant.

More aggressive transplant protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome. The risk of developing AML or MDS was higher for:

• Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0)
• NHL patients who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen (bischloroethylnitrosourea, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan)
• NHL or myeloma patients who received 3 or more lines of chemotherapy versus 1 line (HR, 1.9 for NHL and 1.8 for myeloma)
• NHL patients who underwent transplant in 2005 to 2010 versus 1995 to 1999 (HR, 2.1).

Patients reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database with the same lymphoma and myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent auto-HSCT, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5 to 10 times higher than the background level in the population.

However, the study auto-HSCT cohort had a risk of AML that was 10 to 50 times higher and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.

“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for [auto-HSCT], but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.

The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown.

“One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased post-transplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” the investigators wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age . . . and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (ie, marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”

The study authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The CIBMTR is supported by several US government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. 

Photo by Luis Alvaz

Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) for lymphoma or myeloma have an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to a retrospective study.

The study suggested these patients have 10 to 100 times the risk of AML or MDS as the general population.

The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar lymphoma and myeloma patients largely untreated with auto-HSCT.

Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia Research.

The investigators noted that exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation—both used in auto-HSCT—is known to increase the risk of AML and MDS.

With this in mind, the team analyzed data on auto-HSCT recipients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).

Analyses were based on 9028 patients undergoing auto-HSCT from 1995 to 2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (n=916), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=3546), or plasma cell myeloma (n=4566). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.

Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant.

More aggressive transplant protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome. The risk of developing AML or MDS was higher for:

• Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0)
• NHL patients who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen (bischloroethylnitrosourea, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan)
• NHL or myeloma patients who received 3 or more lines of chemotherapy versus 1 line (HR, 1.9 for NHL and 1.8 for myeloma)
• NHL patients who underwent transplant in 2005 to 2010 versus 1995 to 1999 (HR, 2.1).

Patients reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database with the same lymphoma and myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent auto-HSCT, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5 to 10 times higher than the background level in the population.

However, the study auto-HSCT cohort had a risk of AML that was 10 to 50 times higher and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.

“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for [auto-HSCT], but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.

The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown.

“One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased post-transplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” the investigators wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age . . . and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (ie, marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”

The study authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The CIBMTR is supported by several US government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. 

Photo by Luis Alvaz

Patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant (auto-HSCT) for lymphoma or myeloma have an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), according to a retrospective study.

The study suggested these patients have 10 to 100 times the risk of AML or MDS as the general population.

The elevated risk also exceeds that of similar lymphoma and myeloma patients largely untreated with auto-HSCT.

Tomas Radivoyevitch, PhD, of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio, and his colleagues reported these findings in Leukemia Research.

The investigators noted that exposure to DNA-damaging drugs and ionizing radiation—both used in auto-HSCT—is known to increase the risk of AML and MDS.

With this in mind, the team analyzed data on auto-HSCT recipients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR).

Analyses were based on 9028 patients undergoing auto-HSCT from 1995 to 2010 for Hodgkin lymphoma (n=916), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL, n=3546), or plasma cell myeloma (n=4566). Their median duration of follow-up was 90 months, 110 months, and 97 months, respectively.

Overall, 3.7% of the cohort developed AML or MDS after their transplant.

More aggressive transplant protocols increased the likelihood of this outcome. The risk of developing AML or MDS was higher for:

• Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received conditioning with total body radiation versus chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 4.0)
• NHL patients who received conditioning with total body radiation (HR, 1.7) or with busulfan and melphalan or cyclophosphamide (HR, 1.8) versus the BEAM regimen (bischloroethylnitrosourea, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan)
• NHL or myeloma patients who received 3 or more lines of chemotherapy versus 1 line (HR, 1.9 for NHL and 1.8 for myeloma)
• NHL patients who underwent transplant in 2005 to 2010 versus 1995 to 1999 (HR, 2.1).

Patients reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database with the same lymphoma and myeloma diagnoses, few of whom underwent auto-HSCT, had risks of AML and MDS that were 5 to 10 times higher than the background level in the population.

However, the study auto-HSCT cohort had a risk of AML that was 10 to 50 times higher and a relative risk of MDS that was roughly 100 times higher than the background level.

“These increases may be related to exposure to high doses of DNA-damaging drugs given for [auto-HSCT], but this hypothesis can only be tested in a prospective study,” Dr Radivoyevitch and his coinvestigators wrote.

The reason for the greater elevation of MDS risk, compared with AML risk, is unknown.

“One possible explanation is that many cases of MDS evolve to AML, and that earlier diagnosis from increased post-transplant surveillance resulted in a deficiency of AML,” the investigators wrote. “A second is based on steeper MDS versus AML incidences versus age . . . and the possibility that transplantation recipient marrow ages (ie, marrow biological ages) are perhaps decades older than calendar ages.”

The study authors said they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The CIBMTR is supported by several US government agencies and numerous pharmaceutical companies. 

Photo by Bill Branson

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are recommended as initial therapy for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who do not have TP53 disruption, according to new guidelines from the British Society for Haematology.

The guidelines update the 2012 recommendations on CLL to include “significant” developments in treatment.

The new guidelines were published in the British Journal of Haematology.

Anna H. Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford in the UK, and her coauthors noted that, while these guidelines apply to treatments available outside clinical trials, wherever possible, patients with CLL should be treated within the clinical trial setting.

While recommending fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab as first-line therapy, the guideline authors acknowledged that the combination of bendamustine and rituximab is an acceptable alternative for patients who cannot take the triple therapy because of comorbidities such as advanced age, renal impairment, or issues with marrow capacity.

Similarly, less-fit patients can also be considered for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-ofatumumab combinations.

All patients diagnosed with CLL should be tested for TP53 deletions and mutations before each line of therapy, the guideline committee recommended.

TP53 disruption makes chemoimmunotherapy ineffective because of either a deletion of chromosome 17p or a mutation in the TP53 gene. However, there is compelling evidence for the efficacy of ibrutinib in these patients, or idelalisib and rituximab for those with cardiac disease or receiving vitamin K antagonists.

With respect to maintenance therapy, the guidelines noted that this was not routinely recommended in CLL as “it is unclear to what extent the progression-free survival benefit is offset by long-term toxicity.”

Patients who are refractory to chemoimmunotherapy, who have relapsed, or who cannot be retreated with chemoimmunotherapy should be treated with idelalisib plus rituximab or ibrutinib monotherapy, the guidelines suggested.

“Deciding whether ibrutinib or idelalisib with rituximab is most appropriate for an individual patient depends on a range of factors, including toxicity profile and convenience of delivery,” the authors wrote.

However, they noted that the value of adding bendamustine to either option was unclear as research had not shown significant, associated gains in median progression-free survival.

Allogeneic stem cell transplant should be considered as an option for patients who have failed chemotherapy, have a TP53 disruption and have not responded to B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors such as ibrutinib, or have Richter’s transformation.

The guidelines also addressed the issue of autoimmune cytopenias, which occur in 5% to 10% of patients with CLL and can actually precede the diagnosis of CLL in about 9% of cases.

In patients where autoimmune cytopenia is the dominant clinical feature, they should be treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, or rituximab. However, for patients where the cytopenia is triggered by CLL therapy, the guidelines recommended halting treatment and beginning immunosuppression.

The guideline development was supported by the British Society for Haematology. The UK CLL Forum, which was involved in development as well, is a registered charity that receives funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Bill Branson

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are recommended as initial therapy for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who do not have TP53 disruption, according to new guidelines from the British Society for Haematology.

The guidelines update the 2012 recommendations on CLL to include “significant” developments in treatment.

The new guidelines were published in the British Journal of Haematology.

Anna H. Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford in the UK, and her coauthors noted that, while these guidelines apply to treatments available outside clinical trials, wherever possible, patients with CLL should be treated within the clinical trial setting.

While recommending fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab as first-line therapy, the guideline authors acknowledged that the combination of bendamustine and rituximab is an acceptable alternative for patients who cannot take the triple therapy because of comorbidities such as advanced age, renal impairment, or issues with marrow capacity.

Similarly, less-fit patients can also be considered for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-ofatumumab combinations.

All patients diagnosed with CLL should be tested for TP53 deletions and mutations before each line of therapy, the guideline committee recommended.

TP53 disruption makes chemoimmunotherapy ineffective because of either a deletion of chromosome 17p or a mutation in the TP53 gene. However, there is compelling evidence for the efficacy of ibrutinib in these patients, or idelalisib and rituximab for those with cardiac disease or receiving vitamin K antagonists.

With respect to maintenance therapy, the guidelines noted that this was not routinely recommended in CLL as “it is unclear to what extent the progression-free survival benefit is offset by long-term toxicity.”

Patients who are refractory to chemoimmunotherapy, who have relapsed, or who cannot be retreated with chemoimmunotherapy should be treated with idelalisib plus rituximab or ibrutinib monotherapy, the guidelines suggested.

“Deciding whether ibrutinib or idelalisib with rituximab is most appropriate for an individual patient depends on a range of factors, including toxicity profile and convenience of delivery,” the authors wrote.

However, they noted that the value of adding bendamustine to either option was unclear as research had not shown significant, associated gains in median progression-free survival.

Allogeneic stem cell transplant should be considered as an option for patients who have failed chemotherapy, have a TP53 disruption and have not responded to B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors such as ibrutinib, or have Richter’s transformation.

The guidelines also addressed the issue of autoimmune cytopenias, which occur in 5% to 10% of patients with CLL and can actually precede the diagnosis of CLL in about 9% of cases.

In patients where autoimmune cytopenia is the dominant clinical feature, they should be treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, or rituximab. However, for patients where the cytopenia is triggered by CLL therapy, the guidelines recommended halting treatment and beginning immunosuppression.

The guideline development was supported by the British Society for Haematology. The UK CLL Forum, which was involved in development as well, is a registered charity that receives funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Photo by Bill Branson

Fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab are recommended as initial therapy for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who do not have TP53 disruption, according to new guidelines from the British Society for Haematology.

The guidelines update the 2012 recommendations on CLL to include “significant” developments in treatment.

The new guidelines were published in the British Journal of Haematology.

Anna H. Schuh, MD, of the University of Oxford in the UK, and her coauthors noted that, while these guidelines apply to treatments available outside clinical trials, wherever possible, patients with CLL should be treated within the clinical trial setting.

While recommending fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab as first-line therapy, the guideline authors acknowledged that the combination of bendamustine and rituximab is an acceptable alternative for patients who cannot take the triple therapy because of comorbidities such as advanced age, renal impairment, or issues with marrow capacity.

Similarly, less-fit patients can also be considered for chlorambucil-obinutuzumab or chlorambucil-ofatumumab combinations.

All patients diagnosed with CLL should be tested for TP53 deletions and mutations before each line of therapy, the guideline committee recommended.

TP53 disruption makes chemoimmunotherapy ineffective because of either a deletion of chromosome 17p or a mutation in the TP53 gene. However, there is compelling evidence for the efficacy of ibrutinib in these patients, or idelalisib and rituximab for those with cardiac disease or receiving vitamin K antagonists.

With respect to maintenance therapy, the guidelines noted that this was not routinely recommended in CLL as “it is unclear to what extent the progression-free survival benefit is offset by long-term toxicity.”

Patients who are refractory to chemoimmunotherapy, who have relapsed, or who cannot be retreated with chemoimmunotherapy should be treated with idelalisib plus rituximab or ibrutinib monotherapy, the guidelines suggested.

“Deciding whether ibrutinib or idelalisib with rituximab is most appropriate for an individual patient depends on a range of factors, including toxicity profile and convenience of delivery,” the authors wrote.

However, they noted that the value of adding bendamustine to either option was unclear as research had not shown significant, associated gains in median progression-free survival.

Allogeneic stem cell transplant should be considered as an option for patients who have failed chemotherapy, have a TP53 disruption and have not responded to B-cell receptor signaling pathway inhibitors such as ibrutinib, or have Richter’s transformation.

The guidelines also addressed the issue of autoimmune cytopenias, which occur in 5% to 10% of patients with CLL and can actually precede the diagnosis of CLL in about 9% of cases.

In patients where autoimmune cytopenia is the dominant clinical feature, they should be treated with corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulin, or rituximab. However, for patients where the cytopenia is triggered by CLL therapy, the guidelines recommended halting treatment and beginning immunosuppression.

The guideline development was supported by the British Society for Haematology. The UK CLL Forum, which was involved in development as well, is a registered charity that receives funding from a number of pharmaceutical companies.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

Having health insurance can mean the difference between life and death for US patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), according to research published in Blood.

The study showed that patients with private health insurance had nearly 2-fold better survival outcomes than patients without insurance or those who were covered by Medicare or Medicaid.

A review of records on more than 43,000 FL patients showed that, compared with patients under age 65 with private insurance, the hazard ratios (HR) for death among patients in the same age bracket were 1.96 for those with no insurance, 1.83 for those with Medicaid, and 1.96 for those with Medicare (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“Our study finds that insurance status contributes to survival disparities in FL,” Christopher R. Flowers, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues wrote in Blood.

“Future studies on outcomes in FL should include insurance status as an important predictor. Further research on prognosis for FL should examine the impact of public policy, such as the passage of the [Affordable Care Act], on FL outcomes, as well as examine other factors that influence access to care, such as individual-level socioeconomic status, regular primary care visits, access to prescription medications, and care affordability.”

Earlier research showed that patients with Medicaid or no insurance were more likely than privately insured patients to be diagnosed with cancers at advanced stages, and some patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas have been shown to have insurance-related disparities in treatments and outcomes.

To see whether the same could be true for patients with indolent-histology lymphomas such as FL, Dr Flowers and his colleagues extracted data from the National Cancer Database, a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry sponsored jointly by the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society.

The investigators identified 43,648 patients, age 18 and older, who were diagnosed with FL from 2004 through 2014. The team looked at patients ages 18 to 64 as well as patients age 65 and older to account for changes in insurance with Medicare eligibility.

Overall survival among patients younger than 65 was significantly worse for patients with public insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) or no insurance in Cox proportional hazard models controlling for available data on sociodemographic factors and prognostic indicators.

However, compared with patients age 65 and older with private insurance, only patients with Medicare as their sole source of insurance had significantly worse overall survival (HR, 1.28; P<0.0001).

Patients who were uninsured or had Medicaid were more likely than others to have lower socioeconomic status, present with advanced-stage disease, have systemic symptoms, and have multiple comorbidities that persisted after controlling for known sociodemographic and prognostic factors.

The investigators found that, among patients under age 65, those with a comorbidity score of 1 had an HR for death of 1.71, compared with patients with no comorbidities, and patients with a score of 2 or greater had an HR of 3.1 (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“The findings of the study indicate that improving access to affordable, quality healthcare may reduce disparities in survival for those currently lacking coverage,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by Emory University, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr Flowers reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Spectrum, Celgene, and several other companies. The other authors reported having nothing to disclose.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

Having health insurance can mean the difference between life and death for US patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), according to research published in Blood.

The study showed that patients with private health insurance had nearly 2-fold better survival outcomes than patients without insurance or those who were covered by Medicare or Medicaid.

A review of records on more than 43,000 FL patients showed that, compared with patients under age 65 with private insurance, the hazard ratios (HR) for death among patients in the same age bracket were 1.96 for those with no insurance, 1.83 for those with Medicaid, and 1.96 for those with Medicare (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“Our study finds that insurance status contributes to survival disparities in FL,” Christopher R. Flowers, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues wrote in Blood.

“Future studies on outcomes in FL should include insurance status as an important predictor. Further research on prognosis for FL should examine the impact of public policy, such as the passage of the [Affordable Care Act], on FL outcomes, as well as examine other factors that influence access to care, such as individual-level socioeconomic status, regular primary care visits, access to prescription medications, and care affordability.”

Earlier research showed that patients with Medicaid or no insurance were more likely than privately insured patients to be diagnosed with cancers at advanced stages, and some patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas have been shown to have insurance-related disparities in treatments and outcomes.

To see whether the same could be true for patients with indolent-histology lymphomas such as FL, Dr Flowers and his colleagues extracted data from the National Cancer Database, a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry sponsored jointly by the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society.

The investigators identified 43,648 patients, age 18 and older, who were diagnosed with FL from 2004 through 2014. The team looked at patients ages 18 to 64 as well as patients age 65 and older to account for changes in insurance with Medicare eligibility.

Overall survival among patients younger than 65 was significantly worse for patients with public insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) or no insurance in Cox proportional hazard models controlling for available data on sociodemographic factors and prognostic indicators.

However, compared with patients age 65 and older with private insurance, only patients with Medicare as their sole source of insurance had significantly worse overall survival (HR, 1.28; P<0.0001).

Patients who were uninsured or had Medicaid were more likely than others to have lower socioeconomic status, present with advanced-stage disease, have systemic symptoms, and have multiple comorbidities that persisted after controlling for known sociodemographic and prognostic factors.

The investigators found that, among patients under age 65, those with a comorbidity score of 1 had an HR for death of 1.71, compared with patients with no comorbidities, and patients with a score of 2 or greater had an HR of 3.1 (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“The findings of the study indicate that improving access to affordable, quality healthcare may reduce disparities in survival for those currently lacking coverage,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by Emory University, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr Flowers reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Spectrum, Celgene, and several other companies. The other authors reported having nothing to disclose.

Photo courtesy of the CDC

Having health insurance can mean the difference between life and death for US patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), according to research published in Blood.

The study showed that patients with private health insurance had nearly 2-fold better survival outcomes than patients without insurance or those who were covered by Medicare or Medicaid.

A review of records on more than 43,000 FL patients showed that, compared with patients under age 65 with private insurance, the hazard ratios (HR) for death among patients in the same age bracket were 1.96 for those with no insurance, 1.83 for those with Medicaid, and 1.96 for those with Medicare (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“Our study finds that insurance status contributes to survival disparities in FL,” Christopher R. Flowers, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and his colleagues wrote in Blood.

“Future studies on outcomes in FL should include insurance status as an important predictor. Further research on prognosis for FL should examine the impact of public policy, such as the passage of the [Affordable Care Act], on FL outcomes, as well as examine other factors that influence access to care, such as individual-level socioeconomic status, regular primary care visits, access to prescription medications, and care affordability.”

Earlier research showed that patients with Medicaid or no insurance were more likely than privately insured patients to be diagnosed with cancers at advanced stages, and some patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas have been shown to have insurance-related disparities in treatments and outcomes.

To see whether the same could be true for patients with indolent-histology lymphomas such as FL, Dr Flowers and his colleagues extracted data from the National Cancer Database, a nationwide hospital-based cancer registry sponsored jointly by the American College of Surgeons and the American Cancer Society.

The investigators identified 43,648 patients, age 18 and older, who were diagnosed with FL from 2004 through 2014. The team looked at patients ages 18 to 64 as well as patients age 65 and older to account for changes in insurance with Medicare eligibility.

Overall survival among patients younger than 65 was significantly worse for patients with public insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) or no insurance in Cox proportional hazard models controlling for available data on sociodemographic factors and prognostic indicators.

However, compared with patients age 65 and older with private insurance, only patients with Medicare as their sole source of insurance had significantly worse overall survival (HR, 1.28; P<0.0001).

Patients who were uninsured or had Medicaid were more likely than others to have lower socioeconomic status, present with advanced-stage disease, have systemic symptoms, and have multiple comorbidities that persisted after controlling for known sociodemographic and prognostic factors.

The investigators found that, among patients under age 65, those with a comorbidity score of 1 had an HR for death of 1.71, compared with patients with no comorbidities, and patients with a score of 2 or greater had an HR of 3.1 (P<0.0001 for each comparison).

“The findings of the study indicate that improving access to affordable, quality healthcare may reduce disparities in survival for those currently lacking coverage,” the investigators wrote.

The study was supported by Emory University, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr Flowers reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Spectrum, Celgene, and several other companies. The other authors reported having nothing to disclose.

Micrograph showing CLL

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) should be routinely monitored for melanoma, according to researchers.

A study of 470 CLL patients showed they have a significantly higher risk of invasive melanoma than the general population.

Most of the melanomas reported in this study were detected via routine surveillance, and most were discovered before they reached an advanced stage.

Clive Zent, MD, of Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York, and his colleagues described this study in Leukemia Research.

The researchers analyzed data on 470 CLL patients followed for 2849 person-years. Eighteen of these patients developed 22 melanomas. This included 14 cases of invasive melanoma in 13 patients.

The rate of invasive melanoma was significantly higher in this CLL cohort than the rate observed in the age- and sex-matched general population. The standardized incidence ratio was 6.32.

“We do not for sure know why CLL patients are more susceptible to melanoma, but the most likely cause is a suppressed immune system,” Dr Zent noted.

“Normally, in people with healthy immune systems, malignant skin cells might be detected and destroyed before they become a problem. But in CLL patients, failure of this control system increases the rate at which cancer cells can grow into tumors and also the likelihood that they will become invasive or spread to distant sites.”

Detection and management

Fifteen of the 22 melanomas (68.2%) in the CLL cohort were detected via surveillance in a dermatology clinic, and 2 (9.1%) were detected at the CLL/lymphoma clinic.

Three cases of melanoma (14.3%) were detected within the first year of a patient’s CLL diagnosis.

Seven melanomas (33.3%) were detected at pathologic stage 0, 8 (38.1%) at stage I, 2 (9.5%) at stage II, 3 (14.3%) at stage III, and 1 (4.8%) at stage IV. Detailed data were not available for the remaining case.

Melanomas were managed with wide local excision (n=19), sentinel node biopsies (n=6), Mohs surgery (n=1), drugs (n=2), palliative care (n=1), and comfort care (n=1).

The 4 patients who received drugs, palliative care, or comfort care had advanced melanoma.

The patient who received palliative care was still alive at 2.4 years of follow-up. The patient who received comfort care died of metastatic melanoma 1.4 years after diagnosis.

The third patient with advanced melanoma received 2 cycles of dacarbazine and palliative radiation to lung and brain metastases. This patient died 3.6 years after melanoma diagnosis.

The fourth patient received ipilimumab for the melanoma while also receiving ibrutinib to treat her CLL. When the ipilimumab failed, the patient proceeded to pembrolizumab and achieved a near-complete response within 3 months. Then, an intensely hypermetabolic abdominal node was detected and successfully treated with radiation.

The patient continued on pembrolizumab, and her melanoma was in sustained remission at last follow-up, after 23 cycles of pembrolizumab. Her CLL was still responding to ibrutinib at that point as well.

Based on these data, Dr Zent and his colleagues recommend routine melanoma screening for CLL patients. The team believes such surveillance might decrease morbidity and mortality in these patients, although more research is needed to confirm this theory.

Micrograph showing CLL

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) should be routinely monitored for melanoma, according to researchers.

A study of 470 CLL patients showed they have a significantly higher risk of invasive melanoma than the general population.

Most of the melanomas reported in this study were detected via routine surveillance, and most were discovered before they reached an advanced stage.

Clive Zent, MD, of Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York, and his colleagues described this study in Leukemia Research.

The researchers analyzed data on 470 CLL patients followed for 2849 person-years. Eighteen of these patients developed 22 melanomas. This included 14 cases of invasive melanoma in 13 patients.

The rate of invasive melanoma was significantly higher in this CLL cohort than the rate observed in the age- and sex-matched general population. The standardized incidence ratio was 6.32.

“We do not for sure know why CLL patients are more susceptible to melanoma, but the most likely cause is a suppressed immune system,” Dr Zent noted.

“Normally, in people with healthy immune systems, malignant skin cells might be detected and destroyed before they become a problem. But in CLL patients, failure of this control system increases the rate at which cancer cells can grow into tumors and also the likelihood that they will become invasive or spread to distant sites.”

Detection and management

Fifteen of the 22 melanomas (68.2%) in the CLL cohort were detected via surveillance in a dermatology clinic, and 2 (9.1%) were detected at the CLL/lymphoma clinic.

Three cases of melanoma (14.3%) were detected within the first year of a patient’s CLL diagnosis.

Seven melanomas (33.3%) were detected at pathologic stage 0, 8 (38.1%) at stage I, 2 (9.5%) at stage II, 3 (14.3%) at stage III, and 1 (4.8%) at stage IV. Detailed data were not available for the remaining case.

Melanomas were managed with wide local excision (n=19), sentinel node biopsies (n=6), Mohs surgery (n=1), drugs (n=2), palliative care (n=1), and comfort care (n=1).

The 4 patients who received drugs, palliative care, or comfort care had advanced melanoma.

The patient who received palliative care was still alive at 2.4 years of follow-up. The patient who received comfort care died of metastatic melanoma 1.4 years after diagnosis.

The third patient with advanced melanoma received 2 cycles of dacarbazine and palliative radiation to lung and brain metastases. This patient died 3.6 years after melanoma diagnosis.

The fourth patient received ipilimumab for the melanoma while also receiving ibrutinib to treat her CLL. When the ipilimumab failed, the patient proceeded to pembrolizumab and achieved a near-complete response within 3 months. Then, an intensely hypermetabolic abdominal node was detected and successfully treated with radiation.

The patient continued on pembrolizumab, and her melanoma was in sustained remission at last follow-up, after 23 cycles of pembrolizumab. Her CLL was still responding to ibrutinib at that point as well.

Based on these data, Dr Zent and his colleagues recommend routine melanoma screening for CLL patients. The team believes such surveillance might decrease morbidity and mortality in these patients, although more research is needed to confirm this theory.

Micrograph showing CLL

Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) should be routinely monitored for melanoma, according to researchers.

A study of 470 CLL patients showed they have a significantly higher risk of invasive melanoma than the general population.

Most of the melanomas reported in this study were detected via routine surveillance, and most were discovered before they reached an advanced stage.

Clive Zent, MD, of Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York, and his colleagues described this study in Leukemia Research.

The researchers analyzed data on 470 CLL patients followed for 2849 person-years. Eighteen of these patients developed 22 melanomas. This included 14 cases of invasive melanoma in 13 patients.

The rate of invasive melanoma was significantly higher in this CLL cohort than the rate observed in the age- and sex-matched general population. The standardized incidence ratio was 6.32.

“We do not for sure know why CLL patients are more susceptible to melanoma, but the most likely cause is a suppressed immune system,” Dr Zent noted.

“Normally, in people with healthy immune systems, malignant skin cells might be detected and destroyed before they become a problem. But in CLL patients, failure of this control system increases the rate at which cancer cells can grow into tumors and also the likelihood that they will become invasive or spread to distant sites.”

Detection and management

Fifteen of the 22 melanomas (68.2%) in the CLL cohort were detected via surveillance in a dermatology clinic, and 2 (9.1%) were detected at the CLL/lymphoma clinic.

Three cases of melanoma (14.3%) were detected within the first year of a patient’s CLL diagnosis.

Seven melanomas (33.3%) were detected at pathologic stage 0, 8 (38.1%) at stage I, 2 (9.5%) at stage II, 3 (14.3%) at stage III, and 1 (4.8%) at stage IV. Detailed data were not available for the remaining case.

Melanomas were managed with wide local excision (n=19), sentinel node biopsies (n=6), Mohs surgery (n=1), drugs (n=2), palliative care (n=1), and comfort care (n=1).

The 4 patients who received drugs, palliative care, or comfort care had advanced melanoma.

The patient who received palliative care was still alive at 2.4 years of follow-up. The patient who received comfort care died of metastatic melanoma 1.4 years after diagnosis.

The third patient with advanced melanoma received 2 cycles of dacarbazine and palliative radiation to lung and brain metastases. This patient died 3.6 years after melanoma diagnosis.

The fourth patient received ipilimumab for the melanoma while also receiving ibrutinib to treat her CLL. When the ipilimumab failed, the patient proceeded to pembrolizumab and achieved a near-complete response within 3 months. Then, an intensely hypermetabolic abdominal node was detected and successfully treated with radiation.

The patient continued on pembrolizumab, and her melanoma was in sustained remission at last follow-up, after 23 cycles of pembrolizumab. Her CLL was still responding to ibrutinib at that point as well.

Based on these data, Dr Zent and his colleagues recommend routine melanoma screening for CLL patients. The team believes such surveillance might decrease morbidity and mortality in these patients, although more research is needed to confirm this theory.

Woman sunbathing

New research suggests people who develop frequent cases of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) have an increased risk of leukemias, lymphomas, and other cancers.

“We discovered that people who develop 6 or more basal cell carcinomas during a 10-year period are about 3 times more likely than the general population to develop other, unrelated cancers,” said Kavita Sarin, MD, PhD, of Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

“We’re hopeful that this finding could be a way to identify people at an increased risk for a life-threatening malignancy before those cancers develop.”

Dr Sarin and her colleagues reported their findings in JCI Insight.

Stanford cohort

The researchers first studied 61 patients treated at Stanford Health Care for unusually frequent BCCs—an average of 11 per patient over a 10-year period. The team investigated whether these patients may have mutations in 29 genes that code for DNA damage repair proteins.

“We found that about 20% of the people with frequent basal cell carcinomas have a mutation in one of the genes responsible for repairing DNA damage, versus about 3% of the general population,” Dr Sarin said. “That’s shockingly high.”

Specifically, there were 12 BCC patients (19.7%) who had 13 pathogenic mutations in 12 genes—APC, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, and PALB2. And 3.0% of non-Finnish European subjects in the Exome Aggregation Consortium had pathogenic mutations in these 12 genes.

Furthermore, 21 of the 61 BCC patients (64.4%) had a history of additional cancers. This included 5 hematologic malignancies (leukemia/lymphoma), 5 invasive melanomas, and 2 breast, 2 colon, and 5 prostate cancers.

When the researchers compared the cancer prevalence in these patients to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-estimated prevalence of cancer in the 60- to 69-year-old population of European descent, the BCC cohort had an increased risk of any cancer—a relative risk (RR) of 3.5 (P<0.001).

The RR was 3.5 for leukemia and lymphoma (P=0.004), 11.9 for invasive melanoma (P<0.001), 4.5 for colon cancer (P=0.030), 5.6 for breast cancer (P=0.009), and 4.7 for prostate cancer (P<0.001).

Insurance cohort

To confirm the findings in the Stanford cohort, the researchers applied a similar analysis to a large medical insurance claims database, Truven MarketScan.

The database contained 111,562 patients with 1 case of BCC, 13,264 patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 2920 patients with 12 or more BCCs. Truven patients with no history of BCC served as controls.

The researchers adjusted for age and sex and found that patients with 1 BCC, 6 or more BCCs, and 12 or more BCCs had an increased risk of any cancer compared to controls.

The odds ratio (OR) for any cancer was 1.61 for patients with 1 BCC, 3.12 for those with 6 or more BCCs, and 4.15 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The OR for Hodgkin lymphoma was 2.27 for patients with 1 BCC, 8.94 for patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 15.41 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The OR for non-Hodgkin lymphoma was 1.40 for patients with 1 BCC, 2.59 for patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 3.10 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The OR for leukemia was 1.76 for patients with 1 BCC, 3.23 for patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 5.78 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The researchers pointed out that, the more BCCs an individual had, the more likely that person was to have had other cancers as well.

“I was surprised to see such a strong correlation, but it’s also very gratifying,” Dr Sarin said. “Now, we can ask patients with repeated basal cell carcinomas whether they have family members with other types of cancers and perhaps suggest that they consider genetic testing and increased screening.”

The researchers are continuing to enroll Stanford patients in their study to learn whether particular mutations in genes responsible for repairing DNA damage are linked to the development of specific malignancies. The team would also like to conduct a similar study in patients with frequent melanomas.

The current study was supported by the Dermatology Foundation, the Stanford Society of Physician Scholars, the American Skin Association, and Pellepharm Inc.

Woman sunbathing

New research suggests people who develop frequent cases of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) have an increased risk of leukemias, lymphomas, and other cancers.

“We discovered that people who develop 6 or more basal cell carcinomas during a 10-year period are about 3 times more likely than the general population to develop other, unrelated cancers,” said Kavita Sarin, MD, PhD, of Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

“We’re hopeful that this finding could be a way to identify people at an increased risk for a life-threatening malignancy before those cancers develop.”

Dr Sarin and her colleagues reported their findings in JCI Insight.

Stanford cohort

The researchers first studied 61 patients treated at Stanford Health Care for unusually frequent BCCs—an average of 11 per patient over a 10-year period. The team investigated whether these patients may have mutations in 29 genes that code for DNA damage repair proteins.

“We found that about 20% of the people with frequent basal cell carcinomas have a mutation in one of the genes responsible for repairing DNA damage, versus about 3% of the general population,” Dr Sarin said. “That’s shockingly high.”

Specifically, there were 12 BCC patients (19.7%) who had 13 pathogenic mutations in 12 genes—APC, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, and PALB2. And 3.0% of non-Finnish European subjects in the Exome Aggregation Consortium had pathogenic mutations in these 12 genes.

Furthermore, 21 of the 61 BCC patients (64.4%) had a history of additional cancers. This included 5 hematologic malignancies (leukemia/lymphoma), 5 invasive melanomas, and 2 breast, 2 colon, and 5 prostate cancers.

When the researchers compared the cancer prevalence in these patients to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-estimated prevalence of cancer in the 60- to 69-year-old population of European descent, the BCC cohort had an increased risk of any cancer—a relative risk (RR) of 3.5 (P<0.001).

The RR was 3.5 for leukemia and lymphoma (P=0.004), 11.9 for invasive melanoma (P<0.001), 4.5 for colon cancer (P=0.030), 5.6 for breast cancer (P=0.009), and 4.7 for prostate cancer (P<0.001).

Insurance cohort

To confirm the findings in the Stanford cohort, the researchers applied a similar analysis to a large medical insurance claims database, Truven MarketScan.

The database contained 111,562 patients with 1 case of BCC, 13,264 patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 2920 patients with 12 or more BCCs. Truven patients with no history of BCC served as controls.

The researchers adjusted for age and sex and found that patients with 1 BCC, 6 or more BCCs, and 12 or more BCCs had an increased risk of any cancer compared to controls.

The odds ratio (OR) for any cancer was 1.61 for patients with 1 BCC, 3.12 for those with 6 or more BCCs, and 4.15 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The OR for Hodgkin lymphoma was 2.27 for patients with 1 BCC, 8.94 for patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 15.41 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The OR for non-Hodgkin lymphoma was 1.40 for patients with 1 BCC, 2.59 for patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 3.10 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The OR for leukemia was 1.76 for patients with 1 BCC, 3.23 for patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 5.78 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The researchers pointed out that, the more BCCs an individual had, the more likely that person was to have had other cancers as well.

“I was surprised to see such a strong correlation, but it’s also very gratifying,” Dr Sarin said. “Now, we can ask patients with repeated basal cell carcinomas whether they have family members with other types of cancers and perhaps suggest that they consider genetic testing and increased screening.”

The researchers are continuing to enroll Stanford patients in their study to learn whether particular mutations in genes responsible for repairing DNA damage are linked to the development of specific malignancies. The team would also like to conduct a similar study in patients with frequent melanomas.

The current study was supported by the Dermatology Foundation, the Stanford Society of Physician Scholars, the American Skin Association, and Pellepharm Inc.

Woman sunbathing

New research suggests people who develop frequent cases of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) have an increased risk of leukemias, lymphomas, and other cancers.

“We discovered that people who develop 6 or more basal cell carcinomas during a 10-year period are about 3 times more likely than the general population to develop other, unrelated cancers,” said Kavita Sarin, MD, PhD, of Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

“We’re hopeful that this finding could be a way to identify people at an increased risk for a life-threatening malignancy before those cancers develop.”

Dr Sarin and her colleagues reported their findings in JCI Insight.

Stanford cohort

The researchers first studied 61 patients treated at Stanford Health Care for unusually frequent BCCs—an average of 11 per patient over a 10-year period. The team investigated whether these patients may have mutations in 29 genes that code for DNA damage repair proteins.

“We found that about 20% of the people with frequent basal cell carcinomas have a mutation in one of the genes responsible for repairing DNA damage, versus about 3% of the general population,” Dr Sarin said. “That’s shockingly high.”

Specifically, there were 12 BCC patients (19.7%) who had 13 pathogenic mutations in 12 genes—APC, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, and PALB2. And 3.0% of non-Finnish European subjects in the Exome Aggregation Consortium had pathogenic mutations in these 12 genes.

Furthermore, 21 of the 61 BCC patients (64.4%) had a history of additional cancers. This included 5 hematologic malignancies (leukemia/lymphoma), 5 invasive melanomas, and 2 breast, 2 colon, and 5 prostate cancers.

When the researchers compared the cancer prevalence in these patients to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-estimated prevalence of cancer in the 60- to 69-year-old population of European descent, the BCC cohort had an increased risk of any cancer—a relative risk (RR) of 3.5 (P<0.001).

The RR was 3.5 for leukemia and lymphoma (P=0.004), 11.9 for invasive melanoma (P<0.001), 4.5 for colon cancer (P=0.030), 5.6 for breast cancer (P=0.009), and 4.7 for prostate cancer (P<0.001).

Insurance cohort

To confirm the findings in the Stanford cohort, the researchers applied a similar analysis to a large medical insurance claims database, Truven MarketScan.

The database contained 111,562 patients with 1 case of BCC, 13,264 patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 2920 patients with 12 or more BCCs. Truven patients with no history of BCC served as controls.

The researchers adjusted for age and sex and found that patients with 1 BCC, 6 or more BCCs, and 12 or more BCCs had an increased risk of any cancer compared to controls.

The odds ratio (OR) for any cancer was 1.61 for patients with 1 BCC, 3.12 for those with 6 or more BCCs, and 4.15 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The OR for Hodgkin lymphoma was 2.27 for patients with 1 BCC, 8.94 for patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 15.41 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The OR for non-Hodgkin lymphoma was 1.40 for patients with 1 BCC, 2.59 for patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 3.10 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The OR for leukemia was 1.76 for patients with 1 BCC, 3.23 for patients with 6 or more BCCs, and 5.78 for patients with 12 or more BCCs.

The researchers pointed out that, the more BCCs an individual had, the more likely that person was to have had other cancers as well.

“I was surprised to see such a strong correlation, but it’s also very gratifying,” Dr Sarin said. “Now, we can ask patients with repeated basal cell carcinomas whether they have family members with other types of cancers and perhaps suggest that they consider genetic testing and increased screening.”

The researchers are continuing to enroll Stanford patients in their study to learn whether particular mutations in genes responsible for repairing DNA damage are linked to the development of specific malignancies. The team would also like to conduct a similar study in patients with frequent melanomas.

The current study was supported by the Dermatology Foundation, the Stanford Society of Physician Scholars, the American Skin Association, and Pellepharm Inc.

mycosis fungoides

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved mogamulizumab-kpkc (Poteligeo®) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory mycosis fungoides (MF) or Sézary syndrome (SS) after at least 1 prior systemic therapy.

Mogamulizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against CC chemokine receptor 4 (CCR4). It is the first biologic agent targeting CCR4 to be approved for patients in the US.

Mogamulizumab is expected to be commercially available in the fourth quarter of 2018.

The FDA previously granted mogamulizumab breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designations as well as priority review.

The FDA’s approval of mogamulizumab is supported by the phase 3 MAVORIC trial. Results from this trial were presented at the 10th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum in February.

MAVORIC enrolled 372 adults with histologically confirmed MF or SS who had failed at least 1 systemic therapy. They were randomized to receive mogamulizumab at 1.0 mg/kg (weekly for the first 4-week cycle and then every 2 weeks) or vorinostat at 400 mg daily.

Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Those receiving vorinostat could cross over to mogamulizumab if they progressed or experienced intolerable toxicity.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.

The study’s primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 7.7 months with mogamulizumab and 3.1 months with vorinostat (hazard ratio=0.53, P<0.0001).

The global overall response rate (ORR) was 28% (52/189) in the mogamulizumab arm and 5% (9/186) in the vorinostat arm (P<0.0001).

For patients with MF, the ORR was 21% with mogamulizumab and 7% with vorinostat. For SS patients, the ORR was 37% and 2%, respectively.

After crossover, the ORR in the mogamulizumab arm was 30% (41/136).

The median duration of response (DOR) was 14 months in the mogamulizumab arm and 9 months in the vorinostat arm.

For MF patients, the median DOR was 13 months with mogamulizumab and 9 months with vorinostat. For SS patients, the median DOR was 17 months and 7 months, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), occurring in at least 20% of patients in either arm (mogamulizumab and vorinostat, respectively), were:

• Infusion-related reactions (33.2% vs 0.5%)
• Drug eruptions (23.9% vs 0.5%)
• Diarrhea (23.4% vs 61.8%)
• Nausea (15.2% vs 42.5%)
• Thrombocytopenia (11.4% vs 30.6%)
• Dysgeusia (3.3% vs 28.0%)
• Increased blood creatinine (3.3% vs 28.0%)
• Decreased appetite (7.6% vs 24.7%).

There were no grade 4 AEs in the mogamulizumab arm. Grade 3 AEs in mogamulizumab recipients included drug eruptions (n=8), infusion-related reactions (n=3), fatigue (n=3), decreased appetite (n=2), nausea (n=1), pyrexia (n=1), and diarrhea (n=1).

mycosis fungoides

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved mogamulizumab-kpkc (Poteligeo®) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory mycosis fungoides (MF) or Sézary syndrome (SS) after at least 1 prior systemic therapy.

Mogamulizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against CC chemokine receptor 4 (CCR4). It is the first biologic agent targeting CCR4 to be approved for patients in the US.

Mogamulizumab is expected to be commercially available in the fourth quarter of 2018.

The FDA previously granted mogamulizumab breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designations as well as priority review.

The FDA’s approval of mogamulizumab is supported by the phase 3 MAVORIC trial. Results from this trial were presented at the 10th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum in February.

MAVORIC enrolled 372 adults with histologically confirmed MF or SS who had failed at least 1 systemic therapy. They were randomized to receive mogamulizumab at 1.0 mg/kg (weekly for the first 4-week cycle and then every 2 weeks) or vorinostat at 400 mg daily.

Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Those receiving vorinostat could cross over to mogamulizumab if they progressed or experienced intolerable toxicity.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.

The study’s primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 7.7 months with mogamulizumab and 3.1 months with vorinostat (hazard ratio=0.53, P<0.0001).

The global overall response rate (ORR) was 28% (52/189) in the mogamulizumab arm and 5% (9/186) in the vorinostat arm (P<0.0001).

For patients with MF, the ORR was 21% with mogamulizumab and 7% with vorinostat. For SS patients, the ORR was 37% and 2%, respectively.

After crossover, the ORR in the mogamulizumab arm was 30% (41/136).

The median duration of response (DOR) was 14 months in the mogamulizumab arm and 9 months in the vorinostat arm.

For MF patients, the median DOR was 13 months with mogamulizumab and 9 months with vorinostat. For SS patients, the median DOR was 17 months and 7 months, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), occurring in at least 20% of patients in either arm (mogamulizumab and vorinostat, respectively), were:

• Infusion-related reactions (33.2% vs 0.5%)
• Drug eruptions (23.9% vs 0.5%)
• Diarrhea (23.4% vs 61.8%)
• Nausea (15.2% vs 42.5%)
• Thrombocytopenia (11.4% vs 30.6%)
• Dysgeusia (3.3% vs 28.0%)
• Increased blood creatinine (3.3% vs 28.0%)
• Decreased appetite (7.6% vs 24.7%).

There were no grade 4 AEs in the mogamulizumab arm. Grade 3 AEs in mogamulizumab recipients included drug eruptions (n=8), infusion-related reactions (n=3), fatigue (n=3), decreased appetite (n=2), nausea (n=1), pyrexia (n=1), and diarrhea (n=1).

mycosis fungoides

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved mogamulizumab-kpkc (Poteligeo®) for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory mycosis fungoides (MF) or Sézary syndrome (SS) after at least 1 prior systemic therapy.

Mogamulizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody directed against CC chemokine receptor 4 (CCR4). It is the first biologic agent targeting CCR4 to be approved for patients in the US.

Mogamulizumab is expected to be commercially available in the fourth quarter of 2018.

The FDA previously granted mogamulizumab breakthrough therapy and orphan drug designations as well as priority review.

The FDA’s approval of mogamulizumab is supported by the phase 3 MAVORIC trial. Results from this trial were presented at the 10th Annual T-cell Lymphoma Forum in February.

MAVORIC enrolled 372 adults with histologically confirmed MF or SS who had failed at least 1 systemic therapy. They were randomized to receive mogamulizumab at 1.0 mg/kg (weekly for the first 4-week cycle and then every 2 weeks) or vorinostat at 400 mg daily.

Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Those receiving vorinostat could cross over to mogamulizumab if they progressed or experienced intolerable toxicity.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.

The study’s primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 7.7 months with mogamulizumab and 3.1 months with vorinostat (hazard ratio=0.53, P<0.0001).

The global overall response rate (ORR) was 28% (52/189) in the mogamulizumab arm and 5% (9/186) in the vorinostat arm (P<0.0001).

For patients with MF, the ORR was 21% with mogamulizumab and 7% with vorinostat. For SS patients, the ORR was 37% and 2%, respectively.

After crossover, the ORR in the mogamulizumab arm was 30% (41/136).

The median duration of response (DOR) was 14 months in the mogamulizumab arm and 9 months in the vorinostat arm.

For MF patients, the median DOR was 13 months with mogamulizumab and 9 months with vorinostat. For SS patients, the median DOR was 17 months and 7 months, respectively.

The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), occurring in at least 20% of patients in either arm (mogamulizumab and vorinostat, respectively), were:

• Infusion-related reactions (33.2% vs 0.5%)
• Drug eruptions (23.9% vs 0.5%)
• Diarrhea (23.4% vs 61.8%)
• Nausea (15.2% vs 42.5%)
• Thrombocytopenia (11.4% vs 30.6%)
• Dysgeusia (3.3% vs 28.0%)
• Increased blood creatinine (3.3% vs 28.0%)
• Decreased appetite (7.6% vs 24.7%).

There were no grade 4 AEs in the mogamulizumab arm. Grade 3 AEs in mogamulizumab recipients included drug eruptions (n=8), infusion-related reactions (n=3), fatigue (n=3), decreased appetite (n=2), nausea (n=1), pyrexia (n=1), and diarrhea (n=1).