User login
Migraine after concussion linked to worse outcomes
researchers have found.
“Early assessment of headache – and whether it has migraine features – after concussion can be helpful in predicting which children are at risk for poor outcomes and identifying children who require targeted intervention,” said senior author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, the Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury Professor and head of the department of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.). “Posttraumatic headache, especially when it involves migraine features, is a strong predictor of persisting symptoms and poorer quality of life after childhood concussion.”
Approximately 840,000 children per year visit an emergency department in the United States after having a traumatic brain injury. As many as 90% of those visits are considered to involve a concussion, according to the investigators. Although most children recover quickly, approximately one-third continue to report symptoms a month after the event.
Posttraumatic headache occurs in up to 90% of children, most commonly with features of migraine.
The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, was a secondary analysis of the Advancing Concussion Assessment in Pediatrics (A-CAP) prospective cohort study. The study was conducted at five emergency departments in Canada from September 2016 to July 2019 and included children and adolescents aged 8-17 years who presented with acute concussion or an orthopedic injury.
Children were included in the concussion group if they had a history of blunt head trauma resulting in at least one of three criteria consistent with the World Health Organization definition of mild traumatic brain injury. The criteria include loss of consciousness for less than 30 minutes, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 or 14, or at least one acute sign or symptom of concussion, as noted by emergency clinicians.
Patients were excluded from the concussion group if they had deteriorating neurologic status, underwent neurosurgical intervention, had posttraumatic amnesia that lasted more than 24 hours, or had a score higher than 4 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). The orthopedic injury group included patients without symptoms of concussion and with blunt trauma associated with an AIS 13 score of 4 or less. Patients were excluded from both groups if they had an overnight hospitalization for traumatic brain injury, a concussion within the past 3 months, or a neurodevelopmental disorder.
The researchers analyzed data from 928 children of 967 enrolled in the study. The median age was 12.2 years, and 41.3% were female. The final study cohort included 239 children with orthopedic injuries but no headache, 160 with a concussion and no headache, 134 with a concussion and nonmigraine headaches, and 254 with a concussion and migraine headaches.
Children with posttraumatic migraines 10 days after a concussion had the most severe symptoms and worst quality of life 3 months following their head trauma, the researchers found. Children without headaches within 10 days after concussion had the best 3-month outcomes, comparable to those with orthopedic injuries alone.
The researchers said the strengths of their study included its large population and its inclusion of various causes of head trauma, not just sports-related concussions. Limitations included self-reports of headaches instead of a physician diagnosis and lack of control for clinical interventions that might have affected the outcomes.
Charles Tator, MD, PhD, director of the Canadian Concussion Centre at Toronto Western Hospital, said the findings were unsurprising.
“Headaches are the most common symptom after concussion,” Dr. Tator, who was not involved in the latest research, told this news organization. “In my practice and research with concussed kids 11 and up and with adults, those with preconcussion history of migraine are the most difficult to treat because their headaches don’t improve unless specific measures are taken.”
Dr. Tator, who also is a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Toronto, said clinicians who treat concussions must determine which type of headaches children are experiencing – and refer as early as possible for migraine prevention or treatment and medication, as warranted.
“Early recognition after concussion that migraine headaches are occurring will save kids a lot of suffering,” he said.
The study was supported by a Canadian Institute of Health Research Foundation Grant and by funds from the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Dr. Tator has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
researchers have found.
“Early assessment of headache – and whether it has migraine features – after concussion can be helpful in predicting which children are at risk for poor outcomes and identifying children who require targeted intervention,” said senior author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, the Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury Professor and head of the department of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.). “Posttraumatic headache, especially when it involves migraine features, is a strong predictor of persisting symptoms and poorer quality of life after childhood concussion.”
Approximately 840,000 children per year visit an emergency department in the United States after having a traumatic brain injury. As many as 90% of those visits are considered to involve a concussion, according to the investigators. Although most children recover quickly, approximately one-third continue to report symptoms a month after the event.
Posttraumatic headache occurs in up to 90% of children, most commonly with features of migraine.
The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, was a secondary analysis of the Advancing Concussion Assessment in Pediatrics (A-CAP) prospective cohort study. The study was conducted at five emergency departments in Canada from September 2016 to July 2019 and included children and adolescents aged 8-17 years who presented with acute concussion or an orthopedic injury.
Children were included in the concussion group if they had a history of blunt head trauma resulting in at least one of three criteria consistent with the World Health Organization definition of mild traumatic brain injury. The criteria include loss of consciousness for less than 30 minutes, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 or 14, or at least one acute sign or symptom of concussion, as noted by emergency clinicians.
Patients were excluded from the concussion group if they had deteriorating neurologic status, underwent neurosurgical intervention, had posttraumatic amnesia that lasted more than 24 hours, or had a score higher than 4 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). The orthopedic injury group included patients without symptoms of concussion and with blunt trauma associated with an AIS 13 score of 4 or less. Patients were excluded from both groups if they had an overnight hospitalization for traumatic brain injury, a concussion within the past 3 months, or a neurodevelopmental disorder.
The researchers analyzed data from 928 children of 967 enrolled in the study. The median age was 12.2 years, and 41.3% were female. The final study cohort included 239 children with orthopedic injuries but no headache, 160 with a concussion and no headache, 134 with a concussion and nonmigraine headaches, and 254 with a concussion and migraine headaches.
Children with posttraumatic migraines 10 days after a concussion had the most severe symptoms and worst quality of life 3 months following their head trauma, the researchers found. Children without headaches within 10 days after concussion had the best 3-month outcomes, comparable to those with orthopedic injuries alone.
The researchers said the strengths of their study included its large population and its inclusion of various causes of head trauma, not just sports-related concussions. Limitations included self-reports of headaches instead of a physician diagnosis and lack of control for clinical interventions that might have affected the outcomes.
Charles Tator, MD, PhD, director of the Canadian Concussion Centre at Toronto Western Hospital, said the findings were unsurprising.
“Headaches are the most common symptom after concussion,” Dr. Tator, who was not involved in the latest research, told this news organization. “In my practice and research with concussed kids 11 and up and with adults, those with preconcussion history of migraine are the most difficult to treat because their headaches don’t improve unless specific measures are taken.”
Dr. Tator, who also is a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Toronto, said clinicians who treat concussions must determine which type of headaches children are experiencing – and refer as early as possible for migraine prevention or treatment and medication, as warranted.
“Early recognition after concussion that migraine headaches are occurring will save kids a lot of suffering,” he said.
The study was supported by a Canadian Institute of Health Research Foundation Grant and by funds from the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Dr. Tator has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
researchers have found.
“Early assessment of headache – and whether it has migraine features – after concussion can be helpful in predicting which children are at risk for poor outcomes and identifying children who require targeted intervention,” said senior author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, the Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury Professor and head of the department of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.). “Posttraumatic headache, especially when it involves migraine features, is a strong predictor of persisting symptoms and poorer quality of life after childhood concussion.”
Approximately 840,000 children per year visit an emergency department in the United States after having a traumatic brain injury. As many as 90% of those visits are considered to involve a concussion, according to the investigators. Although most children recover quickly, approximately one-third continue to report symptoms a month after the event.
Posttraumatic headache occurs in up to 90% of children, most commonly with features of migraine.
The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, was a secondary analysis of the Advancing Concussion Assessment in Pediatrics (A-CAP) prospective cohort study. The study was conducted at five emergency departments in Canada from September 2016 to July 2019 and included children and adolescents aged 8-17 years who presented with acute concussion or an orthopedic injury.
Children were included in the concussion group if they had a history of blunt head trauma resulting in at least one of three criteria consistent with the World Health Organization definition of mild traumatic brain injury. The criteria include loss of consciousness for less than 30 minutes, a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13 or 14, or at least one acute sign or symptom of concussion, as noted by emergency clinicians.
Patients were excluded from the concussion group if they had deteriorating neurologic status, underwent neurosurgical intervention, had posttraumatic amnesia that lasted more than 24 hours, or had a score higher than 4 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). The orthopedic injury group included patients without symptoms of concussion and with blunt trauma associated with an AIS 13 score of 4 or less. Patients were excluded from both groups if they had an overnight hospitalization for traumatic brain injury, a concussion within the past 3 months, or a neurodevelopmental disorder.
The researchers analyzed data from 928 children of 967 enrolled in the study. The median age was 12.2 years, and 41.3% were female. The final study cohort included 239 children with orthopedic injuries but no headache, 160 with a concussion and no headache, 134 with a concussion and nonmigraine headaches, and 254 with a concussion and migraine headaches.
Children with posttraumatic migraines 10 days after a concussion had the most severe symptoms and worst quality of life 3 months following their head trauma, the researchers found. Children without headaches within 10 days after concussion had the best 3-month outcomes, comparable to those with orthopedic injuries alone.
The researchers said the strengths of their study included its large population and its inclusion of various causes of head trauma, not just sports-related concussions. Limitations included self-reports of headaches instead of a physician diagnosis and lack of control for clinical interventions that might have affected the outcomes.
Charles Tator, MD, PhD, director of the Canadian Concussion Centre at Toronto Western Hospital, said the findings were unsurprising.
“Headaches are the most common symptom after concussion,” Dr. Tator, who was not involved in the latest research, told this news organization. “In my practice and research with concussed kids 11 and up and with adults, those with preconcussion history of migraine are the most difficult to treat because their headaches don’t improve unless specific measures are taken.”
Dr. Tator, who also is a professor of neurosurgery at the University of Toronto, said clinicians who treat concussions must determine which type of headaches children are experiencing – and refer as early as possible for migraine prevention or treatment and medication, as warranted.
“Early recognition after concussion that migraine headaches are occurring will save kids a lot of suffering,” he said.
The study was supported by a Canadian Institute of Health Research Foundation Grant and by funds from the Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Dr. Tator has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
How effective are sterilization procedures? Study raises questions
Women opt for sterilization for a variety of reasons, but the goal is the same: to avoid getting pregnant.
But a head-to-head study of two forms of female sterilization has found surprisingly high rates of failure with the procedures.
The study compared the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization, a nonincisional procedure, and minimally invasive laparoscopic sterilization. Although both methods prevented pregnancy in the vast majority of women, each was associated with more than a 6% failure rate 5 years after the procedure.
That figure is “much higher than expected,” said Aileen Gariepy, MD, MPH, the director of complex family planning at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who led the study.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported that the chance of pregnancy after sterilization is less than 1%, Dr. Gariepy said. “Women and pregnancy-capable people considering sterilization should be informed that, after the procedure, they have at least a 6% – not 1% – chance of pregnancy in the next 5 years.”
The study was published in Fertility and Sterility.
For laparoscopic sterilization, surgeons close or sever the fallopian tubes to prevent eggs from reaching the uterus and becoming fertilized.
Hysteroscopic sterilization involves the implantation of small, flexible metal coils into each fallopian tube, a process that produces inflammation and scarring that in turn prevents pregnancy. This method, called Essure and formerly marketed by Bayer, received approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. But the agency received thousands of reports of adverse events with Essure, prompting regulators in 2016 to add a boxed warning to the product label about the risk for adverse events, including perforation, migration of the coils, allergic reactions, and pain.
Bayer pulled Essure from the market in 2019, citing decreased sales of the product. Some women did not have the device removed, however, and questions remain about its effectiveness, according to the researchers.
In the new study, Dr. Gariepy and colleagues examined Medicaid claims for 5906 hysteroscopic and 23,965 laparoscopic sterilizations performed in California between 2008 and 2014. They excluded sterilizations that were performed immediately after delivery, which involve a different approach.
The average age of the women in the study was 33 years.
The study found that, 5 years after the sterilization procedure, 6% of women in either group had become pregnant.
Despite the surprising new data, Chailee Moss, MD, an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, said she did not think the study would significantly affect the way she counsels her patients.
The main reason, she said, is that the study relied on an analysis of medical claims, which “is likely inferior to careful review of individual patient records or prospective collection of clinical data.” Home pregnancy tests may easily be excluded from such data and that patients can undergo ultrasound and termination procedures that would likely not be included in the data the researchers analyzed.
Dr. Moss added that the study was limited to California and that the researchers could not determine pregnancy rates for women who moved out of the state and thus received pregnancy care elsewhere. Nor did the authors account for the use of assistive reproductive technology, which can facilitate pregnancy after sterilization despite the success of the original procedure.
Dr. Gariepy, however, said the study may in fact have undercounted pregnancies and that the failure rates might be even higher than 6%, noting that California is “one of the largest, most populous and most diverse states” in terms of race, ethnicity, and other factors, making the new findings highly generalizable.
“I agree that study results should be confirmed by new nationwide study to determine risk of pregnancy after different sterilization methods,” she said. “Nevertheless, this retrospective cohort study delivers a strong signal that doctors and patients need to know about.”
Dr. Gariepy is on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. Dr. Moss has received research funding from Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women opt for sterilization for a variety of reasons, but the goal is the same: to avoid getting pregnant.
But a head-to-head study of two forms of female sterilization has found surprisingly high rates of failure with the procedures.
The study compared the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization, a nonincisional procedure, and minimally invasive laparoscopic sterilization. Although both methods prevented pregnancy in the vast majority of women, each was associated with more than a 6% failure rate 5 years after the procedure.
That figure is “much higher than expected,” said Aileen Gariepy, MD, MPH, the director of complex family planning at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who led the study.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported that the chance of pregnancy after sterilization is less than 1%, Dr. Gariepy said. “Women and pregnancy-capable people considering sterilization should be informed that, after the procedure, they have at least a 6% – not 1% – chance of pregnancy in the next 5 years.”
The study was published in Fertility and Sterility.
For laparoscopic sterilization, surgeons close or sever the fallopian tubes to prevent eggs from reaching the uterus and becoming fertilized.
Hysteroscopic sterilization involves the implantation of small, flexible metal coils into each fallopian tube, a process that produces inflammation and scarring that in turn prevents pregnancy. This method, called Essure and formerly marketed by Bayer, received approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. But the agency received thousands of reports of adverse events with Essure, prompting regulators in 2016 to add a boxed warning to the product label about the risk for adverse events, including perforation, migration of the coils, allergic reactions, and pain.
Bayer pulled Essure from the market in 2019, citing decreased sales of the product. Some women did not have the device removed, however, and questions remain about its effectiveness, according to the researchers.
In the new study, Dr. Gariepy and colleagues examined Medicaid claims for 5906 hysteroscopic and 23,965 laparoscopic sterilizations performed in California between 2008 and 2014. They excluded sterilizations that were performed immediately after delivery, which involve a different approach.
The average age of the women in the study was 33 years.
The study found that, 5 years after the sterilization procedure, 6% of women in either group had become pregnant.
Despite the surprising new data, Chailee Moss, MD, an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, said she did not think the study would significantly affect the way she counsels her patients.
The main reason, she said, is that the study relied on an analysis of medical claims, which “is likely inferior to careful review of individual patient records or prospective collection of clinical data.” Home pregnancy tests may easily be excluded from such data and that patients can undergo ultrasound and termination procedures that would likely not be included in the data the researchers analyzed.
Dr. Moss added that the study was limited to California and that the researchers could not determine pregnancy rates for women who moved out of the state and thus received pregnancy care elsewhere. Nor did the authors account for the use of assistive reproductive technology, which can facilitate pregnancy after sterilization despite the success of the original procedure.
Dr. Gariepy, however, said the study may in fact have undercounted pregnancies and that the failure rates might be even higher than 6%, noting that California is “one of the largest, most populous and most diverse states” in terms of race, ethnicity, and other factors, making the new findings highly generalizable.
“I agree that study results should be confirmed by new nationwide study to determine risk of pregnancy after different sterilization methods,” she said. “Nevertheless, this retrospective cohort study delivers a strong signal that doctors and patients need to know about.”
Dr. Gariepy is on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. Dr. Moss has received research funding from Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women opt for sterilization for a variety of reasons, but the goal is the same: to avoid getting pregnant.
But a head-to-head study of two forms of female sterilization has found surprisingly high rates of failure with the procedures.
The study compared the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization, a nonincisional procedure, and minimally invasive laparoscopic sterilization. Although both methods prevented pregnancy in the vast majority of women, each was associated with more than a 6% failure rate 5 years after the procedure.
That figure is “much higher than expected,” said Aileen Gariepy, MD, MPH, the director of complex family planning at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who led the study.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reported that the chance of pregnancy after sterilization is less than 1%, Dr. Gariepy said. “Women and pregnancy-capable people considering sterilization should be informed that, after the procedure, they have at least a 6% – not 1% – chance of pregnancy in the next 5 years.”
The study was published in Fertility and Sterility.
For laparoscopic sterilization, surgeons close or sever the fallopian tubes to prevent eggs from reaching the uterus and becoming fertilized.
Hysteroscopic sterilization involves the implantation of small, flexible metal coils into each fallopian tube, a process that produces inflammation and scarring that in turn prevents pregnancy. This method, called Essure and formerly marketed by Bayer, received approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002. But the agency received thousands of reports of adverse events with Essure, prompting regulators in 2016 to add a boxed warning to the product label about the risk for adverse events, including perforation, migration of the coils, allergic reactions, and pain.
Bayer pulled Essure from the market in 2019, citing decreased sales of the product. Some women did not have the device removed, however, and questions remain about its effectiveness, according to the researchers.
In the new study, Dr. Gariepy and colleagues examined Medicaid claims for 5906 hysteroscopic and 23,965 laparoscopic sterilizations performed in California between 2008 and 2014. They excluded sterilizations that were performed immediately after delivery, which involve a different approach.
The average age of the women in the study was 33 years.
The study found that, 5 years after the sterilization procedure, 6% of women in either group had become pregnant.
Despite the surprising new data, Chailee Moss, MD, an assistant professor of gynecology and obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University Medical Center, Baltimore, said she did not think the study would significantly affect the way she counsels her patients.
The main reason, she said, is that the study relied on an analysis of medical claims, which “is likely inferior to careful review of individual patient records or prospective collection of clinical data.” Home pregnancy tests may easily be excluded from such data and that patients can undergo ultrasound and termination procedures that would likely not be included in the data the researchers analyzed.
Dr. Moss added that the study was limited to California and that the researchers could not determine pregnancy rates for women who moved out of the state and thus received pregnancy care elsewhere. Nor did the authors account for the use of assistive reproductive technology, which can facilitate pregnancy after sterilization despite the success of the original procedure.
Dr. Gariepy, however, said the study may in fact have undercounted pregnancies and that the failure rates might be even higher than 6%, noting that California is “one of the largest, most populous and most diverse states” in terms of race, ethnicity, and other factors, making the new findings highly generalizable.
“I agree that study results should be confirmed by new nationwide study to determine risk of pregnancy after different sterilization methods,” she said. “Nevertheless, this retrospective cohort study delivers a strong signal that doctors and patients need to know about.”
Dr. Gariepy is on the board of directors of the Society of Family Planning. Dr. Moss has received research funding from Merck.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM FERTILITY AND STERILITY
GENUINE improvements: Ublituximab plus ibrutinib for CLL
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a clinically heterogeneous disease associated with several known genetic abnormalities, including 17p deletion (del[17p]), 11q deletion (del[11q]), and TP53 gene mutations, which are adverse prognostic markers among patients treated with chemoimmunotherapy.
The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib is approved for patients with untreated, relapsed, or refractory disease, including those with del(17p). Clinicians will soon have the chance to pair it with ublituximab, a next-generation, glycoengineered, type I, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds to a unique epitope on CD20, differentiating it from rituximab, ofatumumab, and obinutuzumab. Results from the phase 3 GENUINE trial, which were recently published in The Lancet Haematology, showed that ublituximab plus ibrutinib was superior to ibrutinib alone for patients with relapsed or refractory high-risk CLL.
This news organization spoke with Jennifer R. Brown, MD, PhD, director of the CLL Center and institute physician at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, about the GENUINE trial and its potential impact on treatment choices going forward.
What type of patients were treated in the GENUINE trial?
Dr. Brown: This is a trial among relapsed/refractory CLL patients with 17p or 11q deletion or TP53 mutation. Patients aged 18 years or older with CLL who warranted treatment, as defined by International Workshop on CLL criteria, were eligible if they had previously received at least two cycles of at least one standard treatment regimen, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and had high-risk cytogenetics, defined as the presence of at least one of del(17p), del(11q), or TP53 mutation confirmed by a central laboratory with fluorescence in situ hybridization and/or next-generation sequencing.
What were the main outcomes of the trial?
Originally, the GENUINE trial had coprimary endpoints of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate. Because of slow accrual, it was amended to have one primary endpoint of independent review committee (IRC)–assessed ORR.
IRC-assessed ORR was improved from 65% to 83% with the addition of ublituximab. PFS also improved significantly in the ublituximab group, with an even greater improvement when the analysis was limited to those with del(17p) or TP53 aberrancy, but this outcome was limited by the reduced sample size of the study as well as the relatively short PFS of the ibrutinib arm.
After a median follow-up of 41.6 months, the median IRC-assessed PFS in all treated patients was not reached in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group after 15 PFS events but was 35.9 months in the ibrutinib group after 25 PFS events (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.87; P = .016).
Undetectable minimal residual disease was also seen in 42% of the combination arm, compared with 6% of the ibrutinib arm.
What types of adverse events were found in the trial?
The researchers found mostly mild and known side effects of ibrutinib. More atrial fibrillation and neutropenia were seen in the antibody group, but this was not marked.
Most adverse events were of grade 1 or 2. The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (11 [19%] patients in the ublituximab plus ibrutinib group and 7 [12%] in the ibrutinib group), anemia (5 [8%] and 5 [9%], respectively), and diarrhea (6 [10%] and 3 [5%], respectively).
What about serious adverse events?
Hospitalization from infection was seen, as expected. There were two cardiac arrests and an unexplained death, across both arms, which was concerning, given the known association of ibrutinib with ventricular arrhythmia and sudden death. There were also several hemorrhages, including one fatal one, which was again consistent with the known side effects of ibrutinib.
Are there treatments comparable with ublituximab plus ibrutinib that clinicians should perhaps first consider using?
In terms of other anti-CD20 antibodies, we have two randomized trials that have failed to show a benefit from adding rituximab to ibrutinib.
Obinutuzumab, like ublituximab, is also a next-generation glycoengineered antibody, and it is reasonably likely that it might lead to similar results. However, the only data we have on ibrutinib with obinutuzumab are from a single arm in a more heterogeneous, lower-risk patient population, and it is unlikely that a randomized comparison will ever be done.
On the basis of these trial results, how would you use the combination of ublituximab and ibrutinib for your patients?
I would consider the addition of ublituximab to a BTK inhibitor in high-risk patients (once ublituximab is approved). I already usually use a next-generation BTK inhibitor rather than ibrutinib.
Are there any other implications of the GENUINE trial?
I think this trial underscores the importance of studying genetic subgroups of patients separately. In this case, that was done in high-risk patients, but this observation likely also applies to low-risk patients.
Most trials to date have enrolled unselected patient populations, often without stratification, and their results therefore tend to obscure the outcomes in both the very high risk (as studied here) and in the low risk (patients with immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region gene mutations).
Dr. Brown has served as a consultant for AbbVie, Acerta/AstraZeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys, and Novartis, and has received research funding from Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, TG Therapeutics, Verastem/SecuraBio.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New technologies aim to improve ovarian cancer detection
Encouraging trends abound in the management of ovarian cancer. As rates of ovarian disease continue to decline, there has also been a notable increase in tools for detecting it earlier in its course.
To better understand these developments, this news organization reached out to Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
There has been a decline in the rates of ovarian cancer in recent years. What are the possible causes of this?Dr. Stone: The number of new cases in the United States has actually been declining over the past 2 decades. This is thought to be attributable to the increased prescribing of oral contraceptive pills in the late 1990s and the uptake of preventive measures, such as risk-reducing gynecologic surgery for women with genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer, as well as opportunistic salpingectomy in the general population. Opportunistic salpingectomy was introduced about 10 years ago. It is a surgical means for primary prevention of tubo-ovarian cancer by removing both fallopian tubes at the time of elective surgery for women who have completed childbearing or in lieu of “tying the tubes” for women who desire permanent surgical sterility.
What can you tell us about a recent study suggesting that high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer may be detected earlier in the course of the disease by testing for TP53 clonal variants in DNA from Papanicolaou (Pap) tests performed during cervical cancer screening?
The idea here is that early mutational events that ultimately result in the development of epithelial ovarian cancer can be detected by performing gene sequencing on genetic material collected at the time of routine Pap smear screening done for cervical cancer. Pap tests are known to contain cells and genetic material shed from the fallopian tubes, where the precancerous lesions thought to give rise to epithelial ovarian cancer, predominantly serous epithelial ovarian cancers, start.
p53 gene mutations are thought to occur early in the evolution of ovarian cancer. There are data indicating that these mutations actually occur in cells lining the fallopian tubes. Polymerase chain reaction–based DNA/gene sequencing performed on cervical fluid collected by Pap smears could detect these p53-mutated cells shed from the fallopian tubes.
A strength of this study is that it included healthy controls. None of their Pap smears screened positive for the p53 mutations, unlike the Pap smears of women predating their diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Limitations of the study include the fact that it had a small sample size. Findings will need to be confirmed in a larger patient population.
Also, the study only looked for p53 gene mutations. Ovarian cancers, like other cancers, are largely thought to occur when there is a buildup of mutations in critical genes that result in uncontrolled cell growth and division. These genetic changes/mutations are acquired during a person’s lifetime. Thus, there are likely early genetic changes/mutations that occur in addition to p53 mutations that ultimately lead to the development of ovarian cancer. Detecting these along with p53 mutations could improve the sensitivity/detection rate of the screening strategy that the authors are investigating.
Finally, this screening strategy may not prove effective for the early detection of all histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer or for nonepithelial ovarian cancers.
What other recent developments in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer should clinicians be aware of?
Liquid biopsies using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have shown promising results for cancer detection and management, including ovarian cancer. However, further clarification is needed to define the minimum tumor size/burden detectable using ctDNA-based approaches. Moreover, large prospective studies are needed to determine the clinical utility of ctDNA detection for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer and its impact on patient outcomes.
DNA methylation is an early event in carcinogenesis and can be detected in blood plasma samples from cancer patients. Data related to the discovery and validation of discriminated methylated DNA marker candidates extracted from ovarian cancer tissues were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting this year. Findings were subsequently evaluated in plasma from women with and without ovarian cancer.
In addition to blood, peritoneal fluid and uterine lavage have been used to obtain cell pellets that are used for the identification of common mutant genes – TP53, BRCA1, and BRCA2. These body fluids have also been shown as the source of tumor-derived material that can be used to differentiate between ovarian cancer patients and healthy individuals.
Further studies are needed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of other noninvasive tests for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
The American Cancer Society issued a statement that the human papillomavirus (HPV) test is the preferred cervical cancer screening tool. Why do they prefer the HPV test over the Pap test?
The American Cancer Society recommends that cervical cancer testing (screening) begin at age 25 years. Women aged 25-65 years should have a primary HPV test every 5 years. If primary HPV testing is not available, screening may be done with either a co-test that combines an HPV test with a Pap test every 5 years or a Pap test alone every 3 years.
The HPV test is widely available. The cost of an HPV test is approximately $44 (unit cost, 2014 USD). The cost of a Pap test is approximately $30 (unit cost, 2014 USD).
The HPV test is preferred over cytologic testing (Pap) for several reasons.
Firstly, in well-designed studies, the sensitivity of a single Pap smear for detecting high-grade precancer of the cervix is around 50%, which is less than optimal for a cancer screening test. Sensitivity means the chance that, if you have the disease (in this case, high-grade precancer of the cervix), the test will detect it. In particular, cytology is known to have an even more limited ability to detect glandular precancers, which arise in the endocervical canal rather than on or in close proximity to the exterior surface of the cervix (ectocervix). Thus, HPV-based screening programs hold the promise of improving detection of cervical adenocarcinoma.
Secondly, to function reliably, cytology programs require substantial infrastructure, highly qualified human resources, and a well‐defined quality-control system, which have proved to be costly and difficult to implement. This results in global disparities in cytology-based cervical cancer screening programs.
Thirdly, although co‐testing with both cytology and HPV tests is an option for screening programs, studies have confirmed that there is limited benefit from adding cytology to HPV screening. Long‐term studies from Kaiser Permanente that included over 1 million women found that HPV testing has a very high negative predictive value for precancerous lesions. Women with negative HPV tests were very unlikely to develop precancerous lesions in the following 5 years. The 5‐year risk of high-grade precancer or cancer of the cervix following a negative HPV test was 0.14%, whereas for women with a negative cytology, it was 0.31%. The screening benefit of co‐testing is largely driven by HPV testing and not cytology.
So, in summary, HPV testing is preferred over cytologic screening for cervical cancer, given its improved sensitivity and quality assurance, the opportunity to automate testing, and ultimately, its prospect of reducing the overall number of lifetime screenings for women.
Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Encouraging trends abound in the management of ovarian cancer. As rates of ovarian disease continue to decline, there has also been a notable increase in tools for detecting it earlier in its course.
To better understand these developments, this news organization reached out to Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
There has been a decline in the rates of ovarian cancer in recent years. What are the possible causes of this?Dr. Stone: The number of new cases in the United States has actually been declining over the past 2 decades. This is thought to be attributable to the increased prescribing of oral contraceptive pills in the late 1990s and the uptake of preventive measures, such as risk-reducing gynecologic surgery for women with genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer, as well as opportunistic salpingectomy in the general population. Opportunistic salpingectomy was introduced about 10 years ago. It is a surgical means for primary prevention of tubo-ovarian cancer by removing both fallopian tubes at the time of elective surgery for women who have completed childbearing or in lieu of “tying the tubes” for women who desire permanent surgical sterility.
What can you tell us about a recent study suggesting that high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer may be detected earlier in the course of the disease by testing for TP53 clonal variants in DNA from Papanicolaou (Pap) tests performed during cervical cancer screening?
The idea here is that early mutational events that ultimately result in the development of epithelial ovarian cancer can be detected by performing gene sequencing on genetic material collected at the time of routine Pap smear screening done for cervical cancer. Pap tests are known to contain cells and genetic material shed from the fallopian tubes, where the precancerous lesions thought to give rise to epithelial ovarian cancer, predominantly serous epithelial ovarian cancers, start.
p53 gene mutations are thought to occur early in the evolution of ovarian cancer. There are data indicating that these mutations actually occur in cells lining the fallopian tubes. Polymerase chain reaction–based DNA/gene sequencing performed on cervical fluid collected by Pap smears could detect these p53-mutated cells shed from the fallopian tubes.
A strength of this study is that it included healthy controls. None of their Pap smears screened positive for the p53 mutations, unlike the Pap smears of women predating their diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Limitations of the study include the fact that it had a small sample size. Findings will need to be confirmed in a larger patient population.
Also, the study only looked for p53 gene mutations. Ovarian cancers, like other cancers, are largely thought to occur when there is a buildup of mutations in critical genes that result in uncontrolled cell growth and division. These genetic changes/mutations are acquired during a person’s lifetime. Thus, there are likely early genetic changes/mutations that occur in addition to p53 mutations that ultimately lead to the development of ovarian cancer. Detecting these along with p53 mutations could improve the sensitivity/detection rate of the screening strategy that the authors are investigating.
Finally, this screening strategy may not prove effective for the early detection of all histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer or for nonepithelial ovarian cancers.
What other recent developments in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer should clinicians be aware of?
Liquid biopsies using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have shown promising results for cancer detection and management, including ovarian cancer. However, further clarification is needed to define the minimum tumor size/burden detectable using ctDNA-based approaches. Moreover, large prospective studies are needed to determine the clinical utility of ctDNA detection for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer and its impact on patient outcomes.
DNA methylation is an early event in carcinogenesis and can be detected in blood plasma samples from cancer patients. Data related to the discovery and validation of discriminated methylated DNA marker candidates extracted from ovarian cancer tissues were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting this year. Findings were subsequently evaluated in plasma from women with and without ovarian cancer.
In addition to blood, peritoneal fluid and uterine lavage have been used to obtain cell pellets that are used for the identification of common mutant genes – TP53, BRCA1, and BRCA2. These body fluids have also been shown as the source of tumor-derived material that can be used to differentiate between ovarian cancer patients and healthy individuals.
Further studies are needed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of other noninvasive tests for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
The American Cancer Society issued a statement that the human papillomavirus (HPV) test is the preferred cervical cancer screening tool. Why do they prefer the HPV test over the Pap test?
The American Cancer Society recommends that cervical cancer testing (screening) begin at age 25 years. Women aged 25-65 years should have a primary HPV test every 5 years. If primary HPV testing is not available, screening may be done with either a co-test that combines an HPV test with a Pap test every 5 years or a Pap test alone every 3 years.
The HPV test is widely available. The cost of an HPV test is approximately $44 (unit cost, 2014 USD). The cost of a Pap test is approximately $30 (unit cost, 2014 USD).
The HPV test is preferred over cytologic testing (Pap) for several reasons.
Firstly, in well-designed studies, the sensitivity of a single Pap smear for detecting high-grade precancer of the cervix is around 50%, which is less than optimal for a cancer screening test. Sensitivity means the chance that, if you have the disease (in this case, high-grade precancer of the cervix), the test will detect it. In particular, cytology is known to have an even more limited ability to detect glandular precancers, which arise in the endocervical canal rather than on or in close proximity to the exterior surface of the cervix (ectocervix). Thus, HPV-based screening programs hold the promise of improving detection of cervical adenocarcinoma.
Secondly, to function reliably, cytology programs require substantial infrastructure, highly qualified human resources, and a well‐defined quality-control system, which have proved to be costly and difficult to implement. This results in global disparities in cytology-based cervical cancer screening programs.
Thirdly, although co‐testing with both cytology and HPV tests is an option for screening programs, studies have confirmed that there is limited benefit from adding cytology to HPV screening. Long‐term studies from Kaiser Permanente that included over 1 million women found that HPV testing has a very high negative predictive value for precancerous lesions. Women with negative HPV tests were very unlikely to develop precancerous lesions in the following 5 years. The 5‐year risk of high-grade precancer or cancer of the cervix following a negative HPV test was 0.14%, whereas for women with a negative cytology, it was 0.31%. The screening benefit of co‐testing is largely driven by HPV testing and not cytology.
So, in summary, HPV testing is preferred over cytologic screening for cervical cancer, given its improved sensitivity and quality assurance, the opportunity to automate testing, and ultimately, its prospect of reducing the overall number of lifetime screenings for women.
Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Encouraging trends abound in the management of ovarian cancer. As rates of ovarian disease continue to decline, there has also been a notable increase in tools for detecting it earlier in its course.
To better understand these developments, this news organization reached out to Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
There has been a decline in the rates of ovarian cancer in recent years. What are the possible causes of this?Dr. Stone: The number of new cases in the United States has actually been declining over the past 2 decades. This is thought to be attributable to the increased prescribing of oral contraceptive pills in the late 1990s and the uptake of preventive measures, such as risk-reducing gynecologic surgery for women with genetic predisposition to ovarian cancer, as well as opportunistic salpingectomy in the general population. Opportunistic salpingectomy was introduced about 10 years ago. It is a surgical means for primary prevention of tubo-ovarian cancer by removing both fallopian tubes at the time of elective surgery for women who have completed childbearing or in lieu of “tying the tubes” for women who desire permanent surgical sterility.
What can you tell us about a recent study suggesting that high-grade serous epithelial ovarian cancer may be detected earlier in the course of the disease by testing for TP53 clonal variants in DNA from Papanicolaou (Pap) tests performed during cervical cancer screening?
The idea here is that early mutational events that ultimately result in the development of epithelial ovarian cancer can be detected by performing gene sequencing on genetic material collected at the time of routine Pap smear screening done for cervical cancer. Pap tests are known to contain cells and genetic material shed from the fallopian tubes, where the precancerous lesions thought to give rise to epithelial ovarian cancer, predominantly serous epithelial ovarian cancers, start.
p53 gene mutations are thought to occur early in the evolution of ovarian cancer. There are data indicating that these mutations actually occur in cells lining the fallopian tubes. Polymerase chain reaction–based DNA/gene sequencing performed on cervical fluid collected by Pap smears could detect these p53-mutated cells shed from the fallopian tubes.
A strength of this study is that it included healthy controls. None of their Pap smears screened positive for the p53 mutations, unlike the Pap smears of women predating their diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Limitations of the study include the fact that it had a small sample size. Findings will need to be confirmed in a larger patient population.
Also, the study only looked for p53 gene mutations. Ovarian cancers, like other cancers, are largely thought to occur when there is a buildup of mutations in critical genes that result in uncontrolled cell growth and division. These genetic changes/mutations are acquired during a person’s lifetime. Thus, there are likely early genetic changes/mutations that occur in addition to p53 mutations that ultimately lead to the development of ovarian cancer. Detecting these along with p53 mutations could improve the sensitivity/detection rate of the screening strategy that the authors are investigating.
Finally, this screening strategy may not prove effective for the early detection of all histologic subtypes of epithelial ovarian cancer or for nonepithelial ovarian cancers.
What other recent developments in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer should clinicians be aware of?
Liquid biopsies using circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) have shown promising results for cancer detection and management, including ovarian cancer. However, further clarification is needed to define the minimum tumor size/burden detectable using ctDNA-based approaches. Moreover, large prospective studies are needed to determine the clinical utility of ctDNA detection for early diagnosis of ovarian cancer and its impact on patient outcomes.
DNA methylation is an early event in carcinogenesis and can be detected in blood plasma samples from cancer patients. Data related to the discovery and validation of discriminated methylated DNA marker candidates extracted from ovarian cancer tissues were presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting this year. Findings were subsequently evaluated in plasma from women with and without ovarian cancer.
In addition to blood, peritoneal fluid and uterine lavage have been used to obtain cell pellets that are used for the identification of common mutant genes – TP53, BRCA1, and BRCA2. These body fluids have also been shown as the source of tumor-derived material that can be used to differentiate between ovarian cancer patients and healthy individuals.
Further studies are needed to determine the sensitivity and specificity of other noninvasive tests for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.
The American Cancer Society issued a statement that the human papillomavirus (HPV) test is the preferred cervical cancer screening tool. Why do they prefer the HPV test over the Pap test?
The American Cancer Society recommends that cervical cancer testing (screening) begin at age 25 years. Women aged 25-65 years should have a primary HPV test every 5 years. If primary HPV testing is not available, screening may be done with either a co-test that combines an HPV test with a Pap test every 5 years or a Pap test alone every 3 years.
The HPV test is widely available. The cost of an HPV test is approximately $44 (unit cost, 2014 USD). The cost of a Pap test is approximately $30 (unit cost, 2014 USD).
The HPV test is preferred over cytologic testing (Pap) for several reasons.
Firstly, in well-designed studies, the sensitivity of a single Pap smear for detecting high-grade precancer of the cervix is around 50%, which is less than optimal for a cancer screening test. Sensitivity means the chance that, if you have the disease (in this case, high-grade precancer of the cervix), the test will detect it. In particular, cytology is known to have an even more limited ability to detect glandular precancers, which arise in the endocervical canal rather than on or in close proximity to the exterior surface of the cervix (ectocervix). Thus, HPV-based screening programs hold the promise of improving detection of cervical adenocarcinoma.
Secondly, to function reliably, cytology programs require substantial infrastructure, highly qualified human resources, and a well‐defined quality-control system, which have proved to be costly and difficult to implement. This results in global disparities in cytology-based cervical cancer screening programs.
Thirdly, although co‐testing with both cytology and HPV tests is an option for screening programs, studies have confirmed that there is limited benefit from adding cytology to HPV screening. Long‐term studies from Kaiser Permanente that included over 1 million women found that HPV testing has a very high negative predictive value for precancerous lesions. Women with negative HPV tests were very unlikely to develop precancerous lesions in the following 5 years. The 5‐year risk of high-grade precancer or cancer of the cervix following a negative HPV test was 0.14%, whereas for women with a negative cytology, it was 0.31%. The screening benefit of co‐testing is largely driven by HPV testing and not cytology.
So, in summary, HPV testing is preferred over cytologic screening for cervical cancer, given its improved sensitivity and quality assurance, the opportunity to automate testing, and ultimately, its prospect of reducing the overall number of lifetime screenings for women.
Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A guide to the new agents reshaping ovarian cancer treatment
The treatment of ovarian cancer has evolved considerably in the last few years, with the approval of several PARP inhibitors, antiangiogenic agents, and other therapies for a multitude of indications. Additional treatments are likely to soon join this already diverse spectrum of available options, if their promising efficacy and safety continues to be borne out in ongoing research.
To better understand the individual merits and potential drawbacks of these treatments, Medscape recently spoke with Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Medscape: We’re starting to see preliminary data on pamiparib , an investigational inhibitor of PARP1 and PARP2, for the treatment of ovarian cancer. What is the evidence supporting this drug?
Dr. Stone: Currently, six different PARP inhibitors – olaparib, rucaparib, veliparib, niraparib, talazoparib, and pamiparib – have been in clinical development at different stages. In clinical applications, PARP inhibitors, including olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib, have demonstrated sustained antitumor responses as single agents in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Those with Food and Drug Administration indications in ovarian cancer include olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. The preclinical and clinical data with pamiparib is limited as of now. But, in a xenograft breast cancer model, it was found to be over 10 times more potent than olaparib.
If approved, where would pamiparib fit in the treatment paradigm for ovarian cancer?
It would potentially fit as monotherapy as well as in combination with agents other than standard chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA mutated ovarian cancer. It could also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of chemotherapy treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer.
What adverse events are associated with pamiparib? How does the toxicity profile compare with other drugs for ovarian cancer?
With respect to PARP inhibitors, the differences in potency (PARP trapping) correlate with their toxicity profiles. The most common adverse events are gastrointestinal, hematologic, and constitutional (fatigue). Even though it is difficult to compare toxicities across different trials with heterogeneous patient populations, there are a few points worth noting.
Rucaparib leads to inhibition of renal transporter proteins involved in secretion of creatinine and can lead to increased creatinine (any grade: 15%; grade 3: ≤1%). Transaminitis is generally self-limiting and highest with rucaparib (any grade: 34%; grade 3: 10%). Hematologic toxicities are the highest with niraparib (any grade: thrombocytopenia 61%, anemia 50%, neutropenia 30%; grade ≥3: thrombocytopenia 34%, anemia 25%, neutropenia 20%).
Toxicities are more common in the first few cycles of treatment, warranting closer early monitoring. This differs somewhat from the gastrointestinal, hematological, and constitutional (fatigue) adverse events that we see with common chemotherapeutic agents used to treat ovarian cancer, which are generally cumulative.
PARP inhibitor treatment is also associated with an increased risk of developing myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML). That being said, therapy-related MDS/AML is a well-recognized complication of conventional chemotherapy used to treat a variety of primary malignancies, including ovarian cancer.
The expected toxicity profile for pamiparib is based on what we have seen with the other PARP inhibitors. This includes any grade nausea (50%), fatigue (33%), anemia (20%), vomiting (15%), and neutropenia (13%). Toxicity of grade 3 or higher includes anemia (13%), neutropenia (8%), and fatigue (5%).
Where do the newest drugs to be approved for ovarian cancer in recent years fit within the treatment paradigm? What do the research findings show about their efficacy and safety?
Data from phase 2/3 trials support the use of PARP inhibitors as monotherapy as well as in combination with other agents (most commonly agents other than standard chemotherapy) for the treatment of BRCA mutated or otherwise homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) ovarian cancer. They can also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated/HRD ovarian cancer.
Large phase 3 studies have resulted in the approval of the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer, as well as for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab treatment of newly diagnosed (GOG 218 and ICON 7 trials) or recurrent ovarian cancer (GOG 218, OCEANS, and AURELIA trials). The most common toxicity with antiangiogenic agents is hypertension. Women also commonly experience arthralgia/myalgia. There is an increased risk of proteinuria, blood clots, bleeding, and serious gastrointestinal events such as fistula and bowel perforation.
Data from the phase 2 KEYNOTE 158 trial support pembrolizumab for microsatellite high or mismatch repair-deficient ovarian cancers. Common side effects associated with the use of pembrolizumab include fatigue, itchy skin, diarrhea, nausea, decreased appetite, rash, fever, cough, difficulty breathing, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, and joint pain. Pembrolizumab can cause the immune system to attack normal organs and tissues in the body resulting in serious side effects, including inflammation of such organs as the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys.
Evidence for hormonal therapy (i.e., aromatase inhibitors like letrozole) for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent low-grade serous/endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer comes from largely retrospective cohort studies. A large phase 3 study, now enrolling, will examine if letrozole monotherapy/maintenance is non-inferior to intravenous paclitaxel/carboplatin and maintenance letrozole with respect to progression-free survival in women with stage II-IV primary low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum after primary surgical cytoreduction.
Hormonal therapies are generally very well tolerated. Common side effects may include hot flashes, warmth or redness in the face or chest, headache, dizziness, weakness, bone pain, muscle or joint pain, swelling, weight gain, increased sweating, or increased cholesterol in the blood.
What other drugs are in development for ovarian cancer?
VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as cediranib, are in development. Anlotinib is another drug being investigated. It is a new multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR, PDGFR, and FGFR. Drugs targeting folate-alpha receptor, such as mirvetuximab, are under investigation, particularly for patients with high folate-alpha receptor membrane staining by immunohistochemistry. Drugs targeting cell cycle arrest, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors, are also being considered.
Can you provide some of the highlights of ovarian cancer research presented at this year’s American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting ?
My take is that we have gone from a monotonous landscape of platinum doublet chemotherapy to an exciting, diversified landscape over the past several years. All of this activity has driven median overall survival up from 3 years to 5 years and progression-free survival following first platinum sensitive recurrence to well beyond 6 months.
Since last year’s meeting, we have seen several new approvals, including niraparib for the treatment of BRCA mutated and HRD disease, as well as for first-line maintenance in all comers. In May, the FDA expanded the indication for olaparib to include its combination with bevacizumab as first-line maintenance for BRCA-mutated and HRD disease based on the results of PAOLA-1. With certainty, our treatment paradigms will continue to evolve in response to these and other new data.
At this year’s meeting, the SOLO-2 investigators revealed the first overall survival data for second-line PARP inhibitor maintenance, which is the first suggestion that PARP inhibitor maintenance improves overall survival.
We have a new understanding about the genetics of long-term responders to rucaparib on ARIEL-2.
We also understand how the role of secondary cytoreductive surgery and how nonchemotherapy options for the treatment of platinum sensitive relapse compare in terms of efficacy and toxicity (i.e., AVANOVA-2 and GY004 trials). We see again the importance of R0 cytoreduction when surgery is pursued. Achieving anything less than R0 cytoreduction for the treatment of first platinum sensitive recurrence may translate into shorter survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.
We are also becoming increasingly familiar with the limited therapeutic benefit of single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1, which is so different from our experience in mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer. In the small percentage of responders, there are some durable responses and a suggestion of particular efficacy among women with clear cell ovarian cancer.
What other recent findings in ovarian cancer research should oncologists be aware of?
Data supporting improved efficacy of a gastrointestinal-type chemotherapy regimen for mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers come from a retrospective cohort study of patients with ovarian mucinous carcinoma who received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy at two academic centers.
Identification of inactivating SMARCA4 mutations as the driver of small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, and the idea that CDK4/6 inhibitors could be effectively repurposed to treat this rare but highly aggressive type of ovarian cancer is also new and exciting.
Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The treatment of ovarian cancer has evolved considerably in the last few years, with the approval of several PARP inhibitors, antiangiogenic agents, and other therapies for a multitude of indications. Additional treatments are likely to soon join this already diverse spectrum of available options, if their promising efficacy and safety continues to be borne out in ongoing research.
To better understand the individual merits and potential drawbacks of these treatments, Medscape recently spoke with Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Medscape: We’re starting to see preliminary data on pamiparib , an investigational inhibitor of PARP1 and PARP2, for the treatment of ovarian cancer. What is the evidence supporting this drug?
Dr. Stone: Currently, six different PARP inhibitors – olaparib, rucaparib, veliparib, niraparib, talazoparib, and pamiparib – have been in clinical development at different stages. In clinical applications, PARP inhibitors, including olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib, have demonstrated sustained antitumor responses as single agents in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Those with Food and Drug Administration indications in ovarian cancer include olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. The preclinical and clinical data with pamiparib is limited as of now. But, in a xenograft breast cancer model, it was found to be over 10 times more potent than olaparib.
If approved, where would pamiparib fit in the treatment paradigm for ovarian cancer?
It would potentially fit as monotherapy as well as in combination with agents other than standard chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA mutated ovarian cancer. It could also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of chemotherapy treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer.
What adverse events are associated with pamiparib? How does the toxicity profile compare with other drugs for ovarian cancer?
With respect to PARP inhibitors, the differences in potency (PARP trapping) correlate with their toxicity profiles. The most common adverse events are gastrointestinal, hematologic, and constitutional (fatigue). Even though it is difficult to compare toxicities across different trials with heterogeneous patient populations, there are a few points worth noting.
Rucaparib leads to inhibition of renal transporter proteins involved in secretion of creatinine and can lead to increased creatinine (any grade: 15%; grade 3: ≤1%). Transaminitis is generally self-limiting and highest with rucaparib (any grade: 34%; grade 3: 10%). Hematologic toxicities are the highest with niraparib (any grade: thrombocytopenia 61%, anemia 50%, neutropenia 30%; grade ≥3: thrombocytopenia 34%, anemia 25%, neutropenia 20%).
Toxicities are more common in the first few cycles of treatment, warranting closer early monitoring. This differs somewhat from the gastrointestinal, hematological, and constitutional (fatigue) adverse events that we see with common chemotherapeutic agents used to treat ovarian cancer, which are generally cumulative.
PARP inhibitor treatment is also associated with an increased risk of developing myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML). That being said, therapy-related MDS/AML is a well-recognized complication of conventional chemotherapy used to treat a variety of primary malignancies, including ovarian cancer.
The expected toxicity profile for pamiparib is based on what we have seen with the other PARP inhibitors. This includes any grade nausea (50%), fatigue (33%), anemia (20%), vomiting (15%), and neutropenia (13%). Toxicity of grade 3 or higher includes anemia (13%), neutropenia (8%), and fatigue (5%).
Where do the newest drugs to be approved for ovarian cancer in recent years fit within the treatment paradigm? What do the research findings show about their efficacy and safety?
Data from phase 2/3 trials support the use of PARP inhibitors as monotherapy as well as in combination with other agents (most commonly agents other than standard chemotherapy) for the treatment of BRCA mutated or otherwise homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) ovarian cancer. They can also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated/HRD ovarian cancer.
Large phase 3 studies have resulted in the approval of the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer, as well as for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab treatment of newly diagnosed (GOG 218 and ICON 7 trials) or recurrent ovarian cancer (GOG 218, OCEANS, and AURELIA trials). The most common toxicity with antiangiogenic agents is hypertension. Women also commonly experience arthralgia/myalgia. There is an increased risk of proteinuria, blood clots, bleeding, and serious gastrointestinal events such as fistula and bowel perforation.
Data from the phase 2 KEYNOTE 158 trial support pembrolizumab for microsatellite high or mismatch repair-deficient ovarian cancers. Common side effects associated with the use of pembrolizumab include fatigue, itchy skin, diarrhea, nausea, decreased appetite, rash, fever, cough, difficulty breathing, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, and joint pain. Pembrolizumab can cause the immune system to attack normal organs and tissues in the body resulting in serious side effects, including inflammation of such organs as the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys.
Evidence for hormonal therapy (i.e., aromatase inhibitors like letrozole) for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent low-grade serous/endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer comes from largely retrospective cohort studies. A large phase 3 study, now enrolling, will examine if letrozole monotherapy/maintenance is non-inferior to intravenous paclitaxel/carboplatin and maintenance letrozole with respect to progression-free survival in women with stage II-IV primary low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum after primary surgical cytoreduction.
Hormonal therapies are generally very well tolerated. Common side effects may include hot flashes, warmth or redness in the face or chest, headache, dizziness, weakness, bone pain, muscle or joint pain, swelling, weight gain, increased sweating, or increased cholesterol in the blood.
What other drugs are in development for ovarian cancer?
VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as cediranib, are in development. Anlotinib is another drug being investigated. It is a new multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR, PDGFR, and FGFR. Drugs targeting folate-alpha receptor, such as mirvetuximab, are under investigation, particularly for patients with high folate-alpha receptor membrane staining by immunohistochemistry. Drugs targeting cell cycle arrest, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors, are also being considered.
Can you provide some of the highlights of ovarian cancer research presented at this year’s American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting ?
My take is that we have gone from a monotonous landscape of platinum doublet chemotherapy to an exciting, diversified landscape over the past several years. All of this activity has driven median overall survival up from 3 years to 5 years and progression-free survival following first platinum sensitive recurrence to well beyond 6 months.
Since last year’s meeting, we have seen several new approvals, including niraparib for the treatment of BRCA mutated and HRD disease, as well as for first-line maintenance in all comers. In May, the FDA expanded the indication for olaparib to include its combination with bevacizumab as first-line maintenance for BRCA-mutated and HRD disease based on the results of PAOLA-1. With certainty, our treatment paradigms will continue to evolve in response to these and other new data.
At this year’s meeting, the SOLO-2 investigators revealed the first overall survival data for second-line PARP inhibitor maintenance, which is the first suggestion that PARP inhibitor maintenance improves overall survival.
We have a new understanding about the genetics of long-term responders to rucaparib on ARIEL-2.
We also understand how the role of secondary cytoreductive surgery and how nonchemotherapy options for the treatment of platinum sensitive relapse compare in terms of efficacy and toxicity (i.e., AVANOVA-2 and GY004 trials). We see again the importance of R0 cytoreduction when surgery is pursued. Achieving anything less than R0 cytoreduction for the treatment of first platinum sensitive recurrence may translate into shorter survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.
We are also becoming increasingly familiar with the limited therapeutic benefit of single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1, which is so different from our experience in mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer. In the small percentage of responders, there are some durable responses and a suggestion of particular efficacy among women with clear cell ovarian cancer.
What other recent findings in ovarian cancer research should oncologists be aware of?
Data supporting improved efficacy of a gastrointestinal-type chemotherapy regimen for mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers come from a retrospective cohort study of patients with ovarian mucinous carcinoma who received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy at two academic centers.
Identification of inactivating SMARCA4 mutations as the driver of small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, and the idea that CDK4/6 inhibitors could be effectively repurposed to treat this rare but highly aggressive type of ovarian cancer is also new and exciting.
Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The treatment of ovarian cancer has evolved considerably in the last few years, with the approval of several PARP inhibitors, antiangiogenic agents, and other therapies for a multitude of indications. Additional treatments are likely to soon join this already diverse spectrum of available options, if their promising efficacy and safety continues to be borne out in ongoing research.
To better understand the individual merits and potential drawbacks of these treatments, Medscape recently spoke with Rebecca Stone, MD, an ovarian cancer expert and associate professor of gynecologic oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Medscape: We’re starting to see preliminary data on pamiparib , an investigational inhibitor of PARP1 and PARP2, for the treatment of ovarian cancer. What is the evidence supporting this drug?
Dr. Stone: Currently, six different PARP inhibitors – olaparib, rucaparib, veliparib, niraparib, talazoparib, and pamiparib – have been in clinical development at different stages. In clinical applications, PARP inhibitors, including olaparib, rucaparib, niraparib, and talazoparib, have demonstrated sustained antitumor responses as single agents in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. Those with Food and Drug Administration indications in ovarian cancer include olaparib, rucaparib, and niraparib. The preclinical and clinical data with pamiparib is limited as of now. But, in a xenograft breast cancer model, it was found to be over 10 times more potent than olaparib.
If approved, where would pamiparib fit in the treatment paradigm for ovarian cancer?
It would potentially fit as monotherapy as well as in combination with agents other than standard chemotherapy for the treatment of BRCA mutated ovarian cancer. It could also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of chemotherapy treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated ovarian cancer.
What adverse events are associated with pamiparib? How does the toxicity profile compare with other drugs for ovarian cancer?
With respect to PARP inhibitors, the differences in potency (PARP trapping) correlate with their toxicity profiles. The most common adverse events are gastrointestinal, hematologic, and constitutional (fatigue). Even though it is difficult to compare toxicities across different trials with heterogeneous patient populations, there are a few points worth noting.
Rucaparib leads to inhibition of renal transporter proteins involved in secretion of creatinine and can lead to increased creatinine (any grade: 15%; grade 3: ≤1%). Transaminitis is generally self-limiting and highest with rucaparib (any grade: 34%; grade 3: 10%). Hematologic toxicities are the highest with niraparib (any grade: thrombocytopenia 61%, anemia 50%, neutropenia 30%; grade ≥3: thrombocytopenia 34%, anemia 25%, neutropenia 20%).
Toxicities are more common in the first few cycles of treatment, warranting closer early monitoring. This differs somewhat from the gastrointestinal, hematological, and constitutional (fatigue) adverse events that we see with common chemotherapeutic agents used to treat ovarian cancer, which are generally cumulative.
PARP inhibitor treatment is also associated with an increased risk of developing myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia (MDS/AML). That being said, therapy-related MDS/AML is a well-recognized complication of conventional chemotherapy used to treat a variety of primary malignancies, including ovarian cancer.
The expected toxicity profile for pamiparib is based on what we have seen with the other PARP inhibitors. This includes any grade nausea (50%), fatigue (33%), anemia (20%), vomiting (15%), and neutropenia (13%). Toxicity of grade 3 or higher includes anemia (13%), neutropenia (8%), and fatigue (5%).
Where do the newest drugs to be approved for ovarian cancer in recent years fit within the treatment paradigm? What do the research findings show about their efficacy and safety?
Data from phase 2/3 trials support the use of PARP inhibitors as monotherapy as well as in combination with other agents (most commonly agents other than standard chemotherapy) for the treatment of BRCA mutated or otherwise homologous recombination-deficient (HRD) ovarian cancer. They can also be considered for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of treatment of newly diagnosed or recurrent BRCA-mutated/HRD ovarian cancer.
Large phase 3 studies have resulted in the approval of the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent ovarian cancer, as well as for maintenance therapy at the conclusion of combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab treatment of newly diagnosed (GOG 218 and ICON 7 trials) or recurrent ovarian cancer (GOG 218, OCEANS, and AURELIA trials). The most common toxicity with antiangiogenic agents is hypertension. Women also commonly experience arthralgia/myalgia. There is an increased risk of proteinuria, blood clots, bleeding, and serious gastrointestinal events such as fistula and bowel perforation.
Data from the phase 2 KEYNOTE 158 trial support pembrolizumab for microsatellite high or mismatch repair-deficient ovarian cancers. Common side effects associated with the use of pembrolizumab include fatigue, itchy skin, diarrhea, nausea, decreased appetite, rash, fever, cough, difficulty breathing, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, and joint pain. Pembrolizumab can cause the immune system to attack normal organs and tissues in the body resulting in serious side effects, including inflammation of such organs as the lungs, colon, liver, endocrine glands, and kidneys.
Evidence for hormonal therapy (i.e., aromatase inhibitors like letrozole) for the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent low-grade serous/endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer comes from largely retrospective cohort studies. A large phase 3 study, now enrolling, will examine if letrozole monotherapy/maintenance is non-inferior to intravenous paclitaxel/carboplatin and maintenance letrozole with respect to progression-free survival in women with stage II-IV primary low-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary or peritoneum after primary surgical cytoreduction.
Hormonal therapies are generally very well tolerated. Common side effects may include hot flashes, warmth or redness in the face or chest, headache, dizziness, weakness, bone pain, muscle or joint pain, swelling, weight gain, increased sweating, or increased cholesterol in the blood.
What other drugs are in development for ovarian cancer?
VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as cediranib, are in development. Anlotinib is another drug being investigated. It is a new multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR, PDGFR, and FGFR. Drugs targeting folate-alpha receptor, such as mirvetuximab, are under investigation, particularly for patients with high folate-alpha receptor membrane staining by immunohistochemistry. Drugs targeting cell cycle arrest, such as CDK4/6 inhibitors, are also being considered.
Can you provide some of the highlights of ovarian cancer research presented at this year’s American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting ?
My take is that we have gone from a monotonous landscape of platinum doublet chemotherapy to an exciting, diversified landscape over the past several years. All of this activity has driven median overall survival up from 3 years to 5 years and progression-free survival following first platinum sensitive recurrence to well beyond 6 months.
Since last year’s meeting, we have seen several new approvals, including niraparib for the treatment of BRCA mutated and HRD disease, as well as for first-line maintenance in all comers. In May, the FDA expanded the indication for olaparib to include its combination with bevacizumab as first-line maintenance for BRCA-mutated and HRD disease based on the results of PAOLA-1. With certainty, our treatment paradigms will continue to evolve in response to these and other new data.
At this year’s meeting, the SOLO-2 investigators revealed the first overall survival data for second-line PARP inhibitor maintenance, which is the first suggestion that PARP inhibitor maintenance improves overall survival.
We have a new understanding about the genetics of long-term responders to rucaparib on ARIEL-2.
We also understand how the role of secondary cytoreductive surgery and how nonchemotherapy options for the treatment of platinum sensitive relapse compare in terms of efficacy and toxicity (i.e., AVANOVA-2 and GY004 trials). We see again the importance of R0 cytoreduction when surgery is pursued. Achieving anything less than R0 cytoreduction for the treatment of first platinum sensitive recurrence may translate into shorter survival, compared with chemotherapy alone.
We are also becoming increasingly familiar with the limited therapeutic benefit of single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1, which is so different from our experience in mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancer. In the small percentage of responders, there are some durable responses and a suggestion of particular efficacy among women with clear cell ovarian cancer.
What other recent findings in ovarian cancer research should oncologists be aware of?
Data supporting improved efficacy of a gastrointestinal-type chemotherapy regimen for mucinous epithelial ovarian cancers come from a retrospective cohort study of patients with ovarian mucinous carcinoma who received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy at two academic centers.
Identification of inactivating SMARCA4 mutations as the driver of small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, and the idea that CDK4/6 inhibitors could be effectively repurposed to treat this rare but highly aggressive type of ovarian cancer is also new and exciting.
Dr. Stone has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A uniquely patient-focused take on treating AML in older adults
A diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is particularly challenging in older adults, whose age makes them highly susceptible to the disease and treatment-related toxicity. To help patients and practitioners navigate the clinical decision-making process, the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts who conducted a thorough review of the literature. The result of their work can be found in a new set of guidelines for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML in older adults.
In an interview, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chair of the ASH AML guideline panel and director of the Leukemia Program at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, shared the rationale behind the panel’s key recommendations and the importance of keeping the patient’s goals in mind.
Question: What is the average life expectancy of a 75-year-old developing AML compared with someone of the same age without AML?
Dr. Sekeres: A 75-year-old developing AML has an average life expectancy measured in fewer than 6 months. Somebody who is 75 without leukemia in the United States has a life expectancy that can be measured in a decade or more. AML is a really serious diagnosis when someone is older and significantly truncates expected survival.
Q: What is the median age at AML diagnosis in the United States?
Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.
Q: What are the biological underpinnings for poor outcomes in older AML patients?
Dr. Sekeres: There are a few of them. Older adults with AML tend to have a leukemia that has evolved from a known or unknown previous bone marrow condition such as myelodysplastic syndrome. Older adults also have worse genetics driving their leukemia, which makes the leukemia cells more resistant to chemotherapy. And the leukemia cells may even have drug efflux pumps that extrude chemotherapy that tries to enter the cell. Finally, older adults are more likely to have comorbidities that make their ability to tolerate chemotherapy much lower than for younger adults.
Q: In someone who is newly diagnosed with AML, what initial options are they routinely given?
Dr. Sekeres: For someone who is older, we divide those options into three main categories.
The first is to take intensive chemotherapy, which requires a 4-6 week hospitalization and has a chance of getting somebody who is older into a remission of approximately 50%-60%. But this also carries with it significant treatment-related mortality that may be as high as 10%-20%. So I have to look my older patients in the eyes when I talk about intensive chemotherapy and say, “There is a 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 chance that you might not make it out of the hospital alive.”
The second prong is lower-dose therapy. While the more-intensive therapy requiring hospitalization does have a low, but real, chance of curing that person, less-intensive therapy is not curative. Our best hope with less-intensive therapy is that our patients enter a remission and live longer. With less-intensive therapy, the chance that someone will go into remission is probably around 20%, but again it is not curative. The flip side to that is that it improves a person’s immediate quality of life because they’re not in the hospital for 4-6 weeks.
The final prong is to discuss palliative care or hospice upfront. We designed these guidelines to be focused on a patient’s goals of therapy and to constantly revisit those goals to make sure that the treatment options we are offering are aligning with them.
Q: The panel’s first recommendation is to offer antileukemic therapy over best supportive care in patients who are appropriate candidates. Can you provide some context for this recommendation?
Dr. Sekeres: Doesn’t that strike you as funny that we even have to make a recommendation about getting chemotherapy? Some database studies conducted over the past 2 decades show that, as recently as 15 years ago, only one-third of patients who were over the age of 65 years received any type of chemotherapy for AML. More recently, as we have had a few more drugs available that allow us to use lower-dose approaches, that number has crept up to probably about 50%. We still have half the patients offered no therapy at all. So we felt that we had to deliberately make a recommendation saying that, if it aligns with the patients’ goals, they should be offered chemotherapy.
Q: The second recommendation is that patients considered candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy should receive it over less-intensive antileukemic therapy. How did you get to that recommendation?
Dr. Sekeres: There is a debate in our field about whether older adults should be offered intensive inpatient chemotherapy at all or whether we should be treating all of them with less-intensive therapy. There is not a huge amount of high-quality studies out there to answer some of these questions, in particular whether intensive chemotherapy should be recommended over less-intensive therapy. But with the available evidence, what we believe is that patients live longer if they are offered intensive antileukemic chemotherapy. So again, if it aligns with a patient’s goals, we support that patient receiving more-intensive therapy in the hospital.
Q: What does the panel recommend for patients who achieve remission after at least a single cycle of intensive antileukemic therapy and who are not candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?
Dr. Sekeres: Once again, this may seem at first blush to be an obvious recommendation. The standard treatment of someone who is younger with AML is to offer intensive inpatient chemotherapy to induce remission. This is followed by a few cycles of chemotherapy, mostly in an outpatient setting, to consolidate that remission.
Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?
Dr. Sekeres: Every time we give chemotherapy, we probably get about a 3-4 log kill of leukemia cells. Imagine when patients first present with AML, they may have 10 billion leukemia cells in their body. We are reducing that 3-4 log with the first course of chemotherapy.
When we then look at a bone marrow biopsy, it may appear to be normal. When leukemia is at a lower level in the body, we simply can’t see it using standard techniques. But that doesn’t mean the leukemia is gone. For younger patients, we give another cycle of chemotherapy, then another, then another, and then even another to reduce the number of leukemia cells left over in the body until that person has a durable remission and hopefully cure.
For someone who is older, the data are less clear. While some studies have shown that, if you give too much chemotherapy after the initial course, it doesn’t help that much, there is a paucity of studies that show that any chemotherapy at all after the first induction course is helpful. Consequently, we have to use indirect data. Older people who are long-term survivors from their acute leukemia always seem to have gotten more than one course of chemotherapy. In other words, the initial course of chemotherapy that a patient receives in the hospital isn’t enough. They should receive more than that.
Q: What about older adults with AML considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy but not for intensive antileukemic therapy?
Dr. Sekeres: This again gets to the question of what are a patient’s goals. It takes a very involved conversation with patients at the time of their AML diagnosis to determine whether they would want to pursue an aggressive approach or a less-aggressive approach. If a patients want a less-aggressive approach, and want nothing to do with a hospital stay, then they are also prioritizing initial quality of life. In this recommendation, based on existing studies, we didn’t have a preference for which of the available less-aggressive chemotherapies a person selects.
There’s also debate about what to do in those considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy, such as hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine, but not for intensive antileukemic therapy. What did the available evidence seem to indicate about this issue?
There has been a lot of studies trying to add two drugs together to see if those do better than one drug alone in patients who are older and who choose less-intensive therapy. The majority of those studies have shown no advantage to getting two drugs over one drug.
Our recommendation is that in these situations a patient gets one drug, not two, but there are a couple of caveats. One caveat is that there has been a small study showing the effectiveness of one of those low-dose chemotherapies combined with the drug glasdegib. The second caveat is that there have been results presented combining one of these low-dose chemotherapies with the drug venetoclax. One of those was a negative study, and another was a positive study showing a survival advantage to the combination vs. the low-dose therapy alone. We had to couch our recommendation a little bit because we knew this other study had been presented at a conference, but it hadn’t come out in final form yet. It did recently, however, and we will now revisit this recommendation.
The other complicated aspect to this is that we weren’t 100% convinced that the combination of venetoclax with one of these lower-dose therapies is truly less-intensive therapy. We think it is starting to creep up toward more-intensive chemotherapy, even though it is commonly given to patients in the outpatient setting. It gets into the very complicated area of what are we defining as more-intensive therapy and less-intensive therapy.
Q: Is there a recommended strategy for older adults with AML who achieve a response after receiving less-intensive therapy?
Dr. Sekeres: This is also challenging because there are no randomized studies in which patients received less-intensive therapy for a finite period of time vs. receiving those therapies ad infinitum. Given the lack of data and also given a lot of anecdotal data out there about patients who stopped a certain therapy and relapsed thereafter, we recommended that patients continue the less-intensive therapy ad infinitum. So as long as they are receiving a response to that therapy, they continue on the drug.
Q: Of course, there are also unique considerations faced by older patients who are no longer receiving antileukemic therapy and have moved on to receiving end-of-life care or hospice care. What advice do the guidelines offer in this situation?
Dr. Sekeres: There are a lot of aspects of these recommendations that I think are special. The first is the focus on patient goals of care at every point in these guidelines. The second is that the guidelines follow the real disease course and a real conversation that doctors and patients have at every step of the way to help guide the decisions that have to be made in real time.
A problem we have in the United States is that once patients enter a hospice, most will not allow blood transfusions. One reason is that some say it is antithetical to their philosophy and consider it aggressive care. The second reason is that, to be completely blunt, economically it doesn’t make sense for hospices to allow blood transfusions. The amount that they are reimbursed by Medicare is much lower than the cost of receiving blood in an infusion center.
We wanted to make a clear recommendation that we consider transfusions in a patient who is in a palliative care or hospice mode to be supportive and necessary, and that these should be provided to patients even if they are in hospice and, as always, if consistent with a patient’s goals of care.
Q: How does a patient’s age inform the discussion surrounding what intensity treatment to offer?
Dr. Sekeres: With younger adults, this is not as complicated a conversation. A younger person has a better chance of being cured with intensive chemotherapy and is much more likely to tolerate that intensive chemotherapy. For someone who is younger, we offer intensive chemotherapy and the chance of going into remission is higher, at 70%-80%. The chance of dying is lower, usually less than 5%. It is an easy decision to make.
For an older adult, the risk-benefit ratio shifts and it becomes a more complicated option. Less-intensive therapy or best supportive care or hospice become viable.
Q: Are there other factors confounding the treatment decision-making process in older adults with AML that practitioners should consider?
Dr. Sekeres: Someone who is older is making a different decision than I would. I have school-aged children and believe that my job as a parent is to successfully get them to adulthood, so I would take any treatment under the sun to make sure that happens. People who have lived a longer life than I have may have children and even grandchildren who are adults, and they might have different goals of care. My goals are not going to be the same as my patient’s goals.
It is also harder because patients who are older may feel that they have lived a good life and don’t need to go through heroic measures to try to be around as long as possible, and those goals may not align with the goals of that person’s children who want their parent to be around as long as possible. One of the confounding factors in this is navigating the different goals of the different family members.
Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is particularly challenging in older adults, whose age makes them highly susceptible to the disease and treatment-related toxicity. To help patients and practitioners navigate the clinical decision-making process, the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts who conducted a thorough review of the literature. The result of their work can be found in a new set of guidelines for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML in older adults.
In an interview, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chair of the ASH AML guideline panel and director of the Leukemia Program at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, shared the rationale behind the panel’s key recommendations and the importance of keeping the patient’s goals in mind.
Question: What is the average life expectancy of a 75-year-old developing AML compared with someone of the same age without AML?
Dr. Sekeres: A 75-year-old developing AML has an average life expectancy measured in fewer than 6 months. Somebody who is 75 without leukemia in the United States has a life expectancy that can be measured in a decade or more. AML is a really serious diagnosis when someone is older and significantly truncates expected survival.
Q: What is the median age at AML diagnosis in the United States?
Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.
Q: What are the biological underpinnings for poor outcomes in older AML patients?
Dr. Sekeres: There are a few of them. Older adults with AML tend to have a leukemia that has evolved from a known or unknown previous bone marrow condition such as myelodysplastic syndrome. Older adults also have worse genetics driving their leukemia, which makes the leukemia cells more resistant to chemotherapy. And the leukemia cells may even have drug efflux pumps that extrude chemotherapy that tries to enter the cell. Finally, older adults are more likely to have comorbidities that make their ability to tolerate chemotherapy much lower than for younger adults.
Q: In someone who is newly diagnosed with AML, what initial options are they routinely given?
Dr. Sekeres: For someone who is older, we divide those options into three main categories.
The first is to take intensive chemotherapy, which requires a 4-6 week hospitalization and has a chance of getting somebody who is older into a remission of approximately 50%-60%. But this also carries with it significant treatment-related mortality that may be as high as 10%-20%. So I have to look my older patients in the eyes when I talk about intensive chemotherapy and say, “There is a 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 chance that you might not make it out of the hospital alive.”
The second prong is lower-dose therapy. While the more-intensive therapy requiring hospitalization does have a low, but real, chance of curing that person, less-intensive therapy is not curative. Our best hope with less-intensive therapy is that our patients enter a remission and live longer. With less-intensive therapy, the chance that someone will go into remission is probably around 20%, but again it is not curative. The flip side to that is that it improves a person’s immediate quality of life because they’re not in the hospital for 4-6 weeks.
The final prong is to discuss palliative care or hospice upfront. We designed these guidelines to be focused on a patient’s goals of therapy and to constantly revisit those goals to make sure that the treatment options we are offering are aligning with them.
Q: The panel’s first recommendation is to offer antileukemic therapy over best supportive care in patients who are appropriate candidates. Can you provide some context for this recommendation?
Dr. Sekeres: Doesn’t that strike you as funny that we even have to make a recommendation about getting chemotherapy? Some database studies conducted over the past 2 decades show that, as recently as 15 years ago, only one-third of patients who were over the age of 65 years received any type of chemotherapy for AML. More recently, as we have had a few more drugs available that allow us to use lower-dose approaches, that number has crept up to probably about 50%. We still have half the patients offered no therapy at all. So we felt that we had to deliberately make a recommendation saying that, if it aligns with the patients’ goals, they should be offered chemotherapy.
Q: The second recommendation is that patients considered candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy should receive it over less-intensive antileukemic therapy. How did you get to that recommendation?
Dr. Sekeres: There is a debate in our field about whether older adults should be offered intensive inpatient chemotherapy at all or whether we should be treating all of them with less-intensive therapy. There is not a huge amount of high-quality studies out there to answer some of these questions, in particular whether intensive chemotherapy should be recommended over less-intensive therapy. But with the available evidence, what we believe is that patients live longer if they are offered intensive antileukemic chemotherapy. So again, if it aligns with a patient’s goals, we support that patient receiving more-intensive therapy in the hospital.
Q: What does the panel recommend for patients who achieve remission after at least a single cycle of intensive antileukemic therapy and who are not candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?
Dr. Sekeres: Once again, this may seem at first blush to be an obvious recommendation. The standard treatment of someone who is younger with AML is to offer intensive inpatient chemotherapy to induce remission. This is followed by a few cycles of chemotherapy, mostly in an outpatient setting, to consolidate that remission.
Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?
Dr. Sekeres: Every time we give chemotherapy, we probably get about a 3-4 log kill of leukemia cells. Imagine when patients first present with AML, they may have 10 billion leukemia cells in their body. We are reducing that 3-4 log with the first course of chemotherapy.
When we then look at a bone marrow biopsy, it may appear to be normal. When leukemia is at a lower level in the body, we simply can’t see it using standard techniques. But that doesn’t mean the leukemia is gone. For younger patients, we give another cycle of chemotherapy, then another, then another, and then even another to reduce the number of leukemia cells left over in the body until that person has a durable remission and hopefully cure.
For someone who is older, the data are less clear. While some studies have shown that, if you give too much chemotherapy after the initial course, it doesn’t help that much, there is a paucity of studies that show that any chemotherapy at all after the first induction course is helpful. Consequently, we have to use indirect data. Older people who are long-term survivors from their acute leukemia always seem to have gotten more than one course of chemotherapy. In other words, the initial course of chemotherapy that a patient receives in the hospital isn’t enough. They should receive more than that.
Q: What about older adults with AML considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy but not for intensive antileukemic therapy?
Dr. Sekeres: This again gets to the question of what are a patient’s goals. It takes a very involved conversation with patients at the time of their AML diagnosis to determine whether they would want to pursue an aggressive approach or a less-aggressive approach. If a patients want a less-aggressive approach, and want nothing to do with a hospital stay, then they are also prioritizing initial quality of life. In this recommendation, based on existing studies, we didn’t have a preference for which of the available less-aggressive chemotherapies a person selects.
There’s also debate about what to do in those considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy, such as hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine, but not for intensive antileukemic therapy. What did the available evidence seem to indicate about this issue?
There has been a lot of studies trying to add two drugs together to see if those do better than one drug alone in patients who are older and who choose less-intensive therapy. The majority of those studies have shown no advantage to getting two drugs over one drug.
Our recommendation is that in these situations a patient gets one drug, not two, but there are a couple of caveats. One caveat is that there has been a small study showing the effectiveness of one of those low-dose chemotherapies combined with the drug glasdegib. The second caveat is that there have been results presented combining one of these low-dose chemotherapies with the drug venetoclax. One of those was a negative study, and another was a positive study showing a survival advantage to the combination vs. the low-dose therapy alone. We had to couch our recommendation a little bit because we knew this other study had been presented at a conference, but it hadn’t come out in final form yet. It did recently, however, and we will now revisit this recommendation.
The other complicated aspect to this is that we weren’t 100% convinced that the combination of venetoclax with one of these lower-dose therapies is truly less-intensive therapy. We think it is starting to creep up toward more-intensive chemotherapy, even though it is commonly given to patients in the outpatient setting. It gets into the very complicated area of what are we defining as more-intensive therapy and less-intensive therapy.
Q: Is there a recommended strategy for older adults with AML who achieve a response after receiving less-intensive therapy?
Dr. Sekeres: This is also challenging because there are no randomized studies in which patients received less-intensive therapy for a finite period of time vs. receiving those therapies ad infinitum. Given the lack of data and also given a lot of anecdotal data out there about patients who stopped a certain therapy and relapsed thereafter, we recommended that patients continue the less-intensive therapy ad infinitum. So as long as they are receiving a response to that therapy, they continue on the drug.
Q: Of course, there are also unique considerations faced by older patients who are no longer receiving antileukemic therapy and have moved on to receiving end-of-life care or hospice care. What advice do the guidelines offer in this situation?
Dr. Sekeres: There are a lot of aspects of these recommendations that I think are special. The first is the focus on patient goals of care at every point in these guidelines. The second is that the guidelines follow the real disease course and a real conversation that doctors and patients have at every step of the way to help guide the decisions that have to be made in real time.
A problem we have in the United States is that once patients enter a hospice, most will not allow blood transfusions. One reason is that some say it is antithetical to their philosophy and consider it aggressive care. The second reason is that, to be completely blunt, economically it doesn’t make sense for hospices to allow blood transfusions. The amount that they are reimbursed by Medicare is much lower than the cost of receiving blood in an infusion center.
We wanted to make a clear recommendation that we consider transfusions in a patient who is in a palliative care or hospice mode to be supportive and necessary, and that these should be provided to patients even if they are in hospice and, as always, if consistent with a patient’s goals of care.
Q: How does a patient’s age inform the discussion surrounding what intensity treatment to offer?
Dr. Sekeres: With younger adults, this is not as complicated a conversation. A younger person has a better chance of being cured with intensive chemotherapy and is much more likely to tolerate that intensive chemotherapy. For someone who is younger, we offer intensive chemotherapy and the chance of going into remission is higher, at 70%-80%. The chance of dying is lower, usually less than 5%. It is an easy decision to make.
For an older adult, the risk-benefit ratio shifts and it becomes a more complicated option. Less-intensive therapy or best supportive care or hospice become viable.
Q: Are there other factors confounding the treatment decision-making process in older adults with AML that practitioners should consider?
Dr. Sekeres: Someone who is older is making a different decision than I would. I have school-aged children and believe that my job as a parent is to successfully get them to adulthood, so I would take any treatment under the sun to make sure that happens. People who have lived a longer life than I have may have children and even grandchildren who are adults, and they might have different goals of care. My goals are not going to be the same as my patient’s goals.
It is also harder because patients who are older may feel that they have lived a good life and don’t need to go through heroic measures to try to be around as long as possible, and those goals may not align with the goals of that person’s children who want their parent to be around as long as possible. One of the confounding factors in this is navigating the different goals of the different family members.
Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A diagnosis of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is particularly challenging in older adults, whose age makes them highly susceptible to the disease and treatment-related toxicity. To help patients and practitioners navigate the clinical decision-making process, the American Society of Hematology convened a panel of experts who conducted a thorough review of the literature. The result of their work can be found in a new set of guidelines for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML in older adults.
In an interview, Mikkael Sekeres, MD, chair of the ASH AML guideline panel and director of the Leukemia Program at Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, shared the rationale behind the panel’s key recommendations and the importance of keeping the patient’s goals in mind.
Question: What is the average life expectancy of a 75-year-old developing AML compared with someone of the same age without AML?
Dr. Sekeres: A 75-year-old developing AML has an average life expectancy measured in fewer than 6 months. Somebody who is 75 without leukemia in the United States has a life expectancy that can be measured in a decade or more. AML is a really serious diagnosis when someone is older and significantly truncates expected survival.
Q: What is the median age at AML diagnosis in the United States?
Dr. Sekeres: About 67 years.
Q: What are the biological underpinnings for poor outcomes in older AML patients?
Dr. Sekeres: There are a few of them. Older adults with AML tend to have a leukemia that has evolved from a known or unknown previous bone marrow condition such as myelodysplastic syndrome. Older adults also have worse genetics driving their leukemia, which makes the leukemia cells more resistant to chemotherapy. And the leukemia cells may even have drug efflux pumps that extrude chemotherapy that tries to enter the cell. Finally, older adults are more likely to have comorbidities that make their ability to tolerate chemotherapy much lower than for younger adults.
Q: In someone who is newly diagnosed with AML, what initial options are they routinely given?
Dr. Sekeres: For someone who is older, we divide those options into three main categories.
The first is to take intensive chemotherapy, which requires a 4-6 week hospitalization and has a chance of getting somebody who is older into a remission of approximately 50%-60%. But this also carries with it significant treatment-related mortality that may be as high as 10%-20%. So I have to look my older patients in the eyes when I talk about intensive chemotherapy and say, “There is a 1 in 10 or 1 in 5 chance that you might not make it out of the hospital alive.”
The second prong is lower-dose therapy. While the more-intensive therapy requiring hospitalization does have a low, but real, chance of curing that person, less-intensive therapy is not curative. Our best hope with less-intensive therapy is that our patients enter a remission and live longer. With less-intensive therapy, the chance that someone will go into remission is probably around 20%, but again it is not curative. The flip side to that is that it improves a person’s immediate quality of life because they’re not in the hospital for 4-6 weeks.
The final prong is to discuss palliative care or hospice upfront. We designed these guidelines to be focused on a patient’s goals of therapy and to constantly revisit those goals to make sure that the treatment options we are offering are aligning with them.
Q: The panel’s first recommendation is to offer antileukemic therapy over best supportive care in patients who are appropriate candidates. Can you provide some context for this recommendation?
Dr. Sekeres: Doesn’t that strike you as funny that we even have to make a recommendation about getting chemotherapy? Some database studies conducted over the past 2 decades show that, as recently as 15 years ago, only one-third of patients who were over the age of 65 years received any type of chemotherapy for AML. More recently, as we have had a few more drugs available that allow us to use lower-dose approaches, that number has crept up to probably about 50%. We still have half the patients offered no therapy at all. So we felt that we had to deliberately make a recommendation saying that, if it aligns with the patients’ goals, they should be offered chemotherapy.
Q: The second recommendation is that patients considered candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy should receive it over less-intensive antileukemic therapy. How did you get to that recommendation?
Dr. Sekeres: There is a debate in our field about whether older adults should be offered intensive inpatient chemotherapy at all or whether we should be treating all of them with less-intensive therapy. There is not a huge amount of high-quality studies out there to answer some of these questions, in particular whether intensive chemotherapy should be recommended over less-intensive therapy. But with the available evidence, what we believe is that patients live longer if they are offered intensive antileukemic chemotherapy. So again, if it aligns with a patient’s goals, we support that patient receiving more-intensive therapy in the hospital.
Q: What does the panel recommend for patients who achieve remission after at least a single cycle of intensive antileukemic therapy and who are not candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation?
Dr. Sekeres: Once again, this may seem at first blush to be an obvious recommendation. The standard treatment of someone who is younger with AML is to offer intensive inpatient chemotherapy to induce remission. This is followed by a few cycles of chemotherapy, mostly in an outpatient setting, to consolidate that remission.
Q: What is the underlying philosophy for this approach?
Dr. Sekeres: Every time we give chemotherapy, we probably get about a 3-4 log kill of leukemia cells. Imagine when patients first present with AML, they may have 10 billion leukemia cells in their body. We are reducing that 3-4 log with the first course of chemotherapy.
When we then look at a bone marrow biopsy, it may appear to be normal. When leukemia is at a lower level in the body, we simply can’t see it using standard techniques. But that doesn’t mean the leukemia is gone. For younger patients, we give another cycle of chemotherapy, then another, then another, and then even another to reduce the number of leukemia cells left over in the body until that person has a durable remission and hopefully cure.
For someone who is older, the data are less clear. While some studies have shown that, if you give too much chemotherapy after the initial course, it doesn’t help that much, there is a paucity of studies that show that any chemotherapy at all after the first induction course is helpful. Consequently, we have to use indirect data. Older people who are long-term survivors from their acute leukemia always seem to have gotten more than one course of chemotherapy. In other words, the initial course of chemotherapy that a patient receives in the hospital isn’t enough. They should receive more than that.
Q: What about older adults with AML considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy but not for intensive antileukemic therapy?
Dr. Sekeres: This again gets to the question of what are a patient’s goals. It takes a very involved conversation with patients at the time of their AML diagnosis to determine whether they would want to pursue an aggressive approach or a less-aggressive approach. If a patients want a less-aggressive approach, and want nothing to do with a hospital stay, then they are also prioritizing initial quality of life. In this recommendation, based on existing studies, we didn’t have a preference for which of the available less-aggressive chemotherapies a person selects.
There’s also debate about what to do in those considered appropriate for antileukemic therapy, such as hypomethylating agents (azacitidine and decitabine) or low-dose cytarabine, but not for intensive antileukemic therapy. What did the available evidence seem to indicate about this issue?
There has been a lot of studies trying to add two drugs together to see if those do better than one drug alone in patients who are older and who choose less-intensive therapy. The majority of those studies have shown no advantage to getting two drugs over one drug.
Our recommendation is that in these situations a patient gets one drug, not two, but there are a couple of caveats. One caveat is that there has been a small study showing the effectiveness of one of those low-dose chemotherapies combined with the drug glasdegib. The second caveat is that there have been results presented combining one of these low-dose chemotherapies with the drug venetoclax. One of those was a negative study, and another was a positive study showing a survival advantage to the combination vs. the low-dose therapy alone. We had to couch our recommendation a little bit because we knew this other study had been presented at a conference, but it hadn’t come out in final form yet. It did recently, however, and we will now revisit this recommendation.
The other complicated aspect to this is that we weren’t 100% convinced that the combination of venetoclax with one of these lower-dose therapies is truly less-intensive therapy. We think it is starting to creep up toward more-intensive chemotherapy, even though it is commonly given to patients in the outpatient setting. It gets into the very complicated area of what are we defining as more-intensive therapy and less-intensive therapy.
Q: Is there a recommended strategy for older adults with AML who achieve a response after receiving less-intensive therapy?
Dr. Sekeres: This is also challenging because there are no randomized studies in which patients received less-intensive therapy for a finite period of time vs. receiving those therapies ad infinitum. Given the lack of data and also given a lot of anecdotal data out there about patients who stopped a certain therapy and relapsed thereafter, we recommended that patients continue the less-intensive therapy ad infinitum. So as long as they are receiving a response to that therapy, they continue on the drug.
Q: Of course, there are also unique considerations faced by older patients who are no longer receiving antileukemic therapy and have moved on to receiving end-of-life care or hospice care. What advice do the guidelines offer in this situation?
Dr. Sekeres: There are a lot of aspects of these recommendations that I think are special. The first is the focus on patient goals of care at every point in these guidelines. The second is that the guidelines follow the real disease course and a real conversation that doctors and patients have at every step of the way to help guide the decisions that have to be made in real time.
A problem we have in the United States is that once patients enter a hospice, most will not allow blood transfusions. One reason is that some say it is antithetical to their philosophy and consider it aggressive care. The second reason is that, to be completely blunt, economically it doesn’t make sense for hospices to allow blood transfusions. The amount that they are reimbursed by Medicare is much lower than the cost of receiving blood in an infusion center.
We wanted to make a clear recommendation that we consider transfusions in a patient who is in a palliative care or hospice mode to be supportive and necessary, and that these should be provided to patients even if they are in hospice and, as always, if consistent with a patient’s goals of care.
Q: How does a patient’s age inform the discussion surrounding what intensity treatment to offer?
Dr. Sekeres: With younger adults, this is not as complicated a conversation. A younger person has a better chance of being cured with intensive chemotherapy and is much more likely to tolerate that intensive chemotherapy. For someone who is younger, we offer intensive chemotherapy and the chance of going into remission is higher, at 70%-80%. The chance of dying is lower, usually less than 5%. It is an easy decision to make.
For an older adult, the risk-benefit ratio shifts and it becomes a more complicated option. Less-intensive therapy or best supportive care or hospice become viable.
Q: Are there other factors confounding the treatment decision-making process in older adults with AML that practitioners should consider?
Dr. Sekeres: Someone who is older is making a different decision than I would. I have school-aged children and believe that my job as a parent is to successfully get them to adulthood, so I would take any treatment under the sun to make sure that happens. People who have lived a longer life than I have may have children and even grandchildren who are adults, and they might have different goals of care. My goals are not going to be the same as my patient’s goals.
It is also harder because patients who are older may feel that they have lived a good life and don’t need to go through heroic measures to try to be around as long as possible, and those goals may not align with the goals of that person’s children who want their parent to be around as long as possible. One of the confounding factors in this is navigating the different goals of the different family members.
Dr. Sekeres has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Seven things to know about new lymphoma drug tafasitamab
The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi) in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
In an interview, Ann S. LaCasce, MD, a lymphoma specialist, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and director of the Dana-Farber/Massachusetts General Brigham fellowship in hematology/oncology, discussed the drug and its approval:
Question: How common is relapsed or refractory DLBCL? Have there been any changes in the rates of this disease in recent years?
Dr. LaCasce: Approximately 40% of patients with DLBCL will have relapsed or refractory disease. The rates of lymphoma have been rising over the past several decades for unclear reasons. As this is a disease predominantly of older adults, increasing life expectancy likely plays a role. Environmental factors may also be contributing.
Q: How long do patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not eligible for stem cell transplant usually survive?
Dr. LaCasce: This is highly variable, though it’s estimated to be approximately 1 year. Some patients will be cured with autologous transplantation or CAR-T cells. The pace of the disease can be highly variable, with some patients responding to multiple lines of therapy whereas others may have rapidly progressive refractory disease.
Q: What makes patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL ineligible for ASCT?
Dr. LaCasce: To be eligible, patients need to be younger than 70-75 years or so without significant comorbidities and must have chemotherapy-responsive disease. More than half of patients will not fit these criteria.
Q: Can you briefly describe the L-MIND study that led to the approval of tafasitamab-cxix?
Dr. LaCasce: This was a single-arm, phase 2 study of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL status after one to three prior regimens who were not candidates for ASCT. Patients received tafasitamab until progression and up to 1 year of lenalidomide. The median age was 72 years, and 50% of patients had received only one prior line of therapy.
The overall and complete response rates in 80 patients treated were 60% and 43%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was approximately 1 year. Nearly half of patients required dose reduction of lenalidomide, and about a quarter discontinued the drug. Twenty-five percent of patients discontinued therapy for adverse events.
Q: What’s the toxicity profile of tafasitamab-cxix?
Dr. LaCasce: The most common adverse events were infusion reactions and myelosuppression, which are managed with standard approaches to incident rate ratios with steroids, antihistamines, etc. Myelosuppression can occur, but in this combination is mostly driven by lenalidomide, which is dose reduced or discontinued.
Q: Where does tafasitamab-cxix fit in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory DLBCL? How does it compare with other available options?
Dr. LaCasce: This is an option for patients who are not candidates for potentially curative approaches, including ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy. There are patients not eligible for ASCT who may be appropriate for CAR-T.
Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide requires frequent visits, particularly during the first 3 months, and then every other week until progression. The dose of lenalidomide will not be tolerable for many of these patients.
Other options in this population include polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab or possibly selinexor. The former has similar activity and is time limited, though many patients will not tolerate the full dose of bendamustine. In the study leading to approval, selinexor had a much lower response rate of approximately 30%, and the patient population was much more favorable, given that eligibility required 60-98 days after last therapy before enrolling.
The only approval specific for nontransplant patients is tafasitamab/lenalidomide.
Q: From a cost standpoint, how does tafasitamab compare with other options in this patient population?
Dr. LaCasce: I don’t have exact figures, but all options are very expensive. CAR-T is the most expensive. Given the ongoing therapy of tafasitamab until progression, the cumulative cost could be very high. Polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab and selinexor are also very costly.
Q: What other drugs are in development for relapsed or refractory DLBCL?
Dr. LaCasce: Novel CAR T-cell therapies, including lisocabtagene maraleucel that is at the FDA, are in development. Bispecific antibodies (REGN1979 and mosunetuzumab), combinations with CD47 antibodies, and loncastuximab tesirine are all in phase 2 trials.
Dr. LaCasce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi) in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
In an interview, Ann S. LaCasce, MD, a lymphoma specialist, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and director of the Dana-Farber/Massachusetts General Brigham fellowship in hematology/oncology, discussed the drug and its approval:
Question: How common is relapsed or refractory DLBCL? Have there been any changes in the rates of this disease in recent years?
Dr. LaCasce: Approximately 40% of patients with DLBCL will have relapsed or refractory disease. The rates of lymphoma have been rising over the past several decades for unclear reasons. As this is a disease predominantly of older adults, increasing life expectancy likely plays a role. Environmental factors may also be contributing.
Q: How long do patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not eligible for stem cell transplant usually survive?
Dr. LaCasce: This is highly variable, though it’s estimated to be approximately 1 year. Some patients will be cured with autologous transplantation or CAR-T cells. The pace of the disease can be highly variable, with some patients responding to multiple lines of therapy whereas others may have rapidly progressive refractory disease.
Q: What makes patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL ineligible for ASCT?
Dr. LaCasce: To be eligible, patients need to be younger than 70-75 years or so without significant comorbidities and must have chemotherapy-responsive disease. More than half of patients will not fit these criteria.
Q: Can you briefly describe the L-MIND study that led to the approval of tafasitamab-cxix?
Dr. LaCasce: This was a single-arm, phase 2 study of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL status after one to three prior regimens who were not candidates for ASCT. Patients received tafasitamab until progression and up to 1 year of lenalidomide. The median age was 72 years, and 50% of patients had received only one prior line of therapy.
The overall and complete response rates in 80 patients treated were 60% and 43%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was approximately 1 year. Nearly half of patients required dose reduction of lenalidomide, and about a quarter discontinued the drug. Twenty-five percent of patients discontinued therapy for adverse events.
Q: What’s the toxicity profile of tafasitamab-cxix?
Dr. LaCasce: The most common adverse events were infusion reactions and myelosuppression, which are managed with standard approaches to incident rate ratios with steroids, antihistamines, etc. Myelosuppression can occur, but in this combination is mostly driven by lenalidomide, which is dose reduced or discontinued.
Q: Where does tafasitamab-cxix fit in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory DLBCL? How does it compare with other available options?
Dr. LaCasce: This is an option for patients who are not candidates for potentially curative approaches, including ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy. There are patients not eligible for ASCT who may be appropriate for CAR-T.
Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide requires frequent visits, particularly during the first 3 months, and then every other week until progression. The dose of lenalidomide will not be tolerable for many of these patients.
Other options in this population include polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab or possibly selinexor. The former has similar activity and is time limited, though many patients will not tolerate the full dose of bendamustine. In the study leading to approval, selinexor had a much lower response rate of approximately 30%, and the patient population was much more favorable, given that eligibility required 60-98 days after last therapy before enrolling.
The only approval specific for nontransplant patients is tafasitamab/lenalidomide.
Q: From a cost standpoint, how does tafasitamab compare with other options in this patient population?
Dr. LaCasce: I don’t have exact figures, but all options are very expensive. CAR-T is the most expensive. Given the ongoing therapy of tafasitamab until progression, the cumulative cost could be very high. Polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab and selinexor are also very costly.
Q: What other drugs are in development for relapsed or refractory DLBCL?
Dr. LaCasce: Novel CAR T-cell therapies, including lisocabtagene maraleucel that is at the FDA, are in development. Bispecific antibodies (REGN1979 and mosunetuzumab), combinations with CD47 antibodies, and loncastuximab tesirine are all in phase 2 trials.
Dr. LaCasce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi) in combination with lenalidomide for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
In an interview, Ann S. LaCasce, MD, a lymphoma specialist, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and director of the Dana-Farber/Massachusetts General Brigham fellowship in hematology/oncology, discussed the drug and its approval:
Question: How common is relapsed or refractory DLBCL? Have there been any changes in the rates of this disease in recent years?
Dr. LaCasce: Approximately 40% of patients with DLBCL will have relapsed or refractory disease. The rates of lymphoma have been rising over the past several decades for unclear reasons. As this is a disease predominantly of older adults, increasing life expectancy likely plays a role. Environmental factors may also be contributing.
Q: How long do patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who are not eligible for stem cell transplant usually survive?
Dr. LaCasce: This is highly variable, though it’s estimated to be approximately 1 year. Some patients will be cured with autologous transplantation or CAR-T cells. The pace of the disease can be highly variable, with some patients responding to multiple lines of therapy whereas others may have rapidly progressive refractory disease.
Q: What makes patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL ineligible for ASCT?
Dr. LaCasce: To be eligible, patients need to be younger than 70-75 years or so without significant comorbidities and must have chemotherapy-responsive disease. More than half of patients will not fit these criteria.
Q: Can you briefly describe the L-MIND study that led to the approval of tafasitamab-cxix?
Dr. LaCasce: This was a single-arm, phase 2 study of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL status after one to three prior regimens who were not candidates for ASCT. Patients received tafasitamab until progression and up to 1 year of lenalidomide. The median age was 72 years, and 50% of patients had received only one prior line of therapy.
The overall and complete response rates in 80 patients treated were 60% and 43%, respectively. The median progression-free survival was approximately 1 year. Nearly half of patients required dose reduction of lenalidomide, and about a quarter discontinued the drug. Twenty-five percent of patients discontinued therapy for adverse events.
Q: What’s the toxicity profile of tafasitamab-cxix?
Dr. LaCasce: The most common adverse events were infusion reactions and myelosuppression, which are managed with standard approaches to incident rate ratios with steroids, antihistamines, etc. Myelosuppression can occur, but in this combination is mostly driven by lenalidomide, which is dose reduced or discontinued.
Q: Where does tafasitamab-cxix fit in the treatment paradigm for relapsed or refractory DLBCL? How does it compare with other available options?
Dr. LaCasce: This is an option for patients who are not candidates for potentially curative approaches, including ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy. There are patients not eligible for ASCT who may be appropriate for CAR-T.
Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide requires frequent visits, particularly during the first 3 months, and then every other week until progression. The dose of lenalidomide will not be tolerable for many of these patients.
Other options in this population include polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab or possibly selinexor. The former has similar activity and is time limited, though many patients will not tolerate the full dose of bendamustine. In the study leading to approval, selinexor had a much lower response rate of approximately 30%, and the patient population was much more favorable, given that eligibility required 60-98 days after last therapy before enrolling.
The only approval specific for nontransplant patients is tafasitamab/lenalidomide.
Q: From a cost standpoint, how does tafasitamab compare with other options in this patient population?
Dr. LaCasce: I don’t have exact figures, but all options are very expensive. CAR-T is the most expensive. Given the ongoing therapy of tafasitamab until progression, the cumulative cost could be very high. Polatuzumab plus bendamustine/rituximab and selinexor are also very costly.
Q: What other drugs are in development for relapsed or refractory DLBCL?
Dr. LaCasce: Novel CAR T-cell therapies, including lisocabtagene maraleucel that is at the FDA, are in development. Bispecific antibodies (REGN1979 and mosunetuzumab), combinations with CD47 antibodies, and loncastuximab tesirine are all in phase 2 trials.
Dr. LaCasce has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Don’t overlook treating older patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia, expert says
The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.
In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?
Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.
How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?
Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.
Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?
Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.
The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?
Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.
What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?
Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.
What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?
In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.
Special considerations in older patients with APL
How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?
Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.
Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?
The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.
Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?
There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.
How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?
Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.
How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?
There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.
A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks.
What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?
Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.
Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.
It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?
There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.
Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL
Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?
It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.
How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?
We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.
We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.
From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.
Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.
In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?
Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.
How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?
Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.
Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?
Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.
The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?
Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.
What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?
Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.
What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?
In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.
Special considerations in older patients with APL
How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?
Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.
Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?
The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.
Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?
There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.
How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?
Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.
How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?
There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.
A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks.
What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?
Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.
Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.
It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?
There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.
Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL
Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?
It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.
How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?
We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.
We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.
From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.
Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The estimated one third of patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who are older than 60 years now enjoy a notably better prognosis than in years past, thanks to the introduction of all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) and arsenic trioxide (ATO). However, such patients still require special management considerations, and can only benefit from treatment advantages if properly identified.
In a recently published set of recommendations, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology Task Force outlined the latest information on the treatment of APL in older patients. Medscape spoke with the lead author of the article, Heidi Klepin, MD, MS, professor in the section on hematology and oncology at Wake Forest School of Medicine in Winston Salem, N.C., who highlighted the key points that clinicians need to know about this often highly treatable subtype of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Medscape: How do the potential benefits of therapy for APL compare with other AML subtypes in older persons?
Dr. Klepin: Potential benefits of therapy are dramatically better for APL, compared with other AML subtypes. The use of non–chemotherapy based regimens with ATRA and ATO has substantially changed options for APL management. ATRA+ATO are associated with high remission and cure rates. The chance of cure with less toxicity extends the clinical benefit to adults of advanced age and, to some extent, with comorbidities.
How has the management strategy for this subgroup of patients with APL changed in recent years?
Management options have changed dramatically with the advent of non–chemotherapy-based regimens. The majority of treated older adults could be expected to achieve remissions that are durable, with less risk of major side effects during treatment. Adults with comorbid conditions, at advanced age, and with some functional limitations could also still benefit from treatment.
Does that management strategy change based on whether patients are considered low-risk or high-risk?
Clinical trials are lacking to provide best evidence for the optimal treatment for adults over age 70 years. However, based on available data and experience, the expert consensus provided in this report recommends that older adults regardless of age with low-risk disease should be offered ATRA+ATO–based therapy if available.
The optimal approach for patients with high-risk disease is less clear based on available studies. For fit older adults without cardiac disease, the use of single-drug anthracycline chemotherapy with ATRA plus/minus ATO is appropriate. However, treatment with ATRA+ATO may also provide a good response with less side-effect risk. For older patients with high-risk disease and comorbidity or poor functional status, the use of non-chemotherapy regimen ATRA+ATO is preferred.
What role does frailty have in making treatment decisions in this population?
Although frail older adults have not been specifically studied in clinical trials, it is reasonable to offer treatment with a non–chemotherapy based regimen for many of these patients, particularly if frailty may in part be related to disease burden. Frailty is a dynamic state. Rapid initiation of therapy can improve function and symptoms, potentially reversing the phenotype of frailty if driven largely by disease burden.
What is the role of consolidation and maintenance therapy in older patients with APL?
Consolidation therapy is recommended with ATRA+ATO as a standard consideration for most patients when available, although protocol-based treatments may vary. For those older adults treated with chemotherapy+ATRA for high-risk disease, decreased anthracycline [chemotherapy] exposure during consolidation results in less mortality risk. Maintenance therapy is not needed when ATRA+ATO are used for induction and consolidation and after achieving a molecular remission.
What other patient factors should influence treatment decisions?
In practice, older age, concurrent comorbid conditions [particularly cardiac disease], and physical function may all influence treatment decisions. Regarding the disease itself, a high white blood cell count at diagnosis, which is classified as higher-risk disease, directs choice of therapy, particularly for fit older adults. Cardiac disease can limit certain treatment options because of risk of side effects. In particular, the use of anthracycline chemotherapy is contraindicated for people with heart failure, and the use of ATO can increase risk of arrhythmia and is not used with certain EKG findings.
Special considerations in older patients with APL
How would you characterize older individuals’ involvement in clinical trials?
Older adults are underrepresented on clinical trials, with very limited inclusion of those over age 75 years. Some APL trials have had upper age exclusions, which is something we have advocated to remove.
Are there unique challenges in diagnosing older adults with APL?
The presentation of APL with low blood counts can look similar to other types of AML or myelodysplastic syndrome when reviewing routine lab results. If additional testing is not done quickly, the diagnosis will be missed, as well as the opportunity for effective treatment. Rapid diagnosis is essential in this disease.
Are there age-related differences in the presentation of APL?
There are no available data to support more-aggressive APL biology in older adults.
How does age impact the outcomes of patients with APL?
Although the outcomes in APL have improved, the survival difference between age groups has not decreased in recent years and the magnitude of improvement in survival in older patients still lags behind younger patients. Older age is also associated with worse outcomes driven largely by increased early death, with greater rates of infection and multiorgan failure leading to a decreased overall survival.
How important is a geriatric assessment for older patients with APL? What role does it play in management?
There are no data on the use of a geriatric assessment specifically in APL, although a geriatric assessment is recommended for older adults starting new chemotherapy in general. A geriatric assessment may help determine who is fit enough to be treated like a younger patient, which has the greatest implications for those with high-risk disease where chemotherapy would be added.
A geriatric assessment can also play an important role in management by identifying vulnerabilities that could be addressed to minimize complications during treatment regardless of the type of treatment given. An example would be identifying and addressing polypharmacy (commonly defined as ≥5 medications). One challenge faced when treating older patients is the use of multiple concomitant medications. Polypharmacy is common among older patients with cancer. Among older adults, each new drug increases the risk of adverse drug events by 10%. Drugs commonly used for the treatment of APL, such as ATRA and ATO, have many potential drug interactions, which must be carefully assessed by a pharmacist prior to and during treatment. Active deprescribing of medications that are not critical during treatment for APL should be done to minimize risks.
What is differentiation syndrome? What role does age appear to play in the risk of developing it and in strategies for managing it?
Differentiation syndrome is a serious side effect that may occur in patients with APL who have been treated with certain anticancer drugs. Differentiation syndrome usually occurs within a week or 2 of starting treatment. It is caused by a large, rapid release of cytokines [immune substances] from leukemia cells. The most common symptoms include fever; cough; shortness of breath; weight gain; swelling of the arms, legs, and neck; build-up of excess fluid around the heart and lungs; low blood pressure; and kidney failure. Differentiation syndrome can be life-threatening if not recognized and treated early.
Some evidence suggests older adults may be at a higher risk for developing differentiation syndrome and may be less likely to tolerate it. A risk factor is kidney dysfunction, which is more common in older adults.
It is not clear that management should differ by age, but vigilance is critical. The use of prophylactic steroids is considered for high-risk patients [high white cell count or kidney disease]. The treatment for differentiation syndrome involves rapid use of steroids.
Does the management of infections differ in older people with APL?
There is no clear data to support a different management of infection prevention for older adults, although preventive antibiotics can be considered as older adults are at a higher risk for infectious complications. However, drug interactions need to be carefully considered in this context.
Guiding clinicians toward better treatment of APL
Why did you decide to formulate these recommendations now?
It is particularly important to draw attention to the management of older adults with APL given the availability of effective non–chemotherapy based therapies and the large distinction between expected outcomes with APL vs. other types of acute leukemia in this population. This diagnosis should not be missed. Further, we highlight the importance of ensuring that older adults are included in trials to provide best evidence for both treatment choice and supportive care management.
How do you see these recommendations affecting clinical practice?
We want to emphasize that advanced age should not preclude treatment, which can have meaningful benefit with expectation of remission and quality time gained.
We hope that these recommendations provide a useful blueprint for guiding the management of older adults, particularly consolidating information to help inform treatment for those patients older than 75 years that can provide best estimates of side effects and benefits when making a decision with patients. We also hope that these recommendations will be used to educate providers on the importance of looking for this diagnosis in our older patients.
From a practical standpoint, it will be important that this information gets to those providers who are making the referrals to oncologists, which can include primary care physicians and emergency room providers, to ensure prompt diagnostic workup. Treatment decisions can only be made once a diagnosis has been recognized, and time is critical with this disease.
Dr. Klepin disclosed a consultancy for Genentech and Pfizer and is a contributor to UpToDate.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.