Transplant

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Rosenberg_Steven_A_MD_web.jpg

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Rosenberg_Steven_A_MD_web.jpg

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

Widely considered the father of cancer immunotherapy, Steven A. Rosenberg MD, PhD, FAACR, has spent nearly 50 years analyzing the link between patients’ immune reaction and their cancer response.

His pioneering research established interleukin-2 (IL-2) as the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved cancer immunotherapy in 1992.

To recognize his trailblazing work and other achievements, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) will award Dr. Rosenberg with the 2024 AACR Award for Lifetime Achievement in Cancer Research at its annual meeting in April.

Rosenberg_Steven_A_MD_web.jpg

Dr. Rosenberg: I grew up in the Bronx. My parents both immigrated to the United States from Poland as teenagers.


As a young boy, did you always want to become a doctor?

Dr. Rosenberg: I think some defining moments on why I decided to go into medicine occurred when I was 6 or 7 years old. The second world war was over, and many of the horrors of the Holocaust became apparent to me. I was brought up as an Orthodox Jew. My parents were quite religious, and I remember postcards coming in one after another about relatives that had died in the death camps. That had a profound influence on me.


How did that experience impact your aspirations?

Dr. Rosenberg: It was an example to me of how evil certain people and groups can be toward one another. I decided at that point, that I wanted to do something good for people, and medicine seemed the most likely way to do that. But also, I was developing a broad scientific interest. I ended up at the Bronx High School of Science and knew that I not only wanted to practice the medicine of today, but I wanted to play a role in helping develop the medicine.


What led to your interest in cancer treatment?

Dr. Rosenberg: Well, as a medical student and resident, it became clear that the field of cancer needed major improvement. We had three major ways to treat cancer: surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. That could cure about half of the people [who] had cancer. But despite the best application of those three specialties, there were over 600,000 deaths from cancer each year in the United States alone. It was clear to me that new approaches were needed, and I became very interested in taking advantage of the body’s immune system as a source of information to try to make progress.


Were there patients who inspired your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: There were two patients that I saw early in my career that impressed me a great deal. One was a patient that I saw when working in the emergency ward as a resident. A patient came in with right upper quadrant pain that looked like a gallbladder attack. That’s what it was. But when I went through his chart, I saw that he had been at that hospital 12 years earlier with a metastatic gastric cancer. The surgeons had operated. They saw tumor had spread to the liver and could not be removed. They closed the belly, not expecting him to survive. Yet he kept showing up for follow-up visits.
Here he was 12 years later. When I helped operate to take out his gallbladder, there was no evidence of any cancer. The cancer had disappeared in the absence of any external treatment. One of the rarest events in medicine, the spontaneous regression of a cancer. Somehow his body had learned how to destroy the tumor.
 

Was the second patient’s case as impressive?

Dr. Rosenberg: This patient had received a kidney transplant from a gentleman who died in an auto accident. [The donor’s] kidney contained a cancer deposit, a kidney cancer, unbeknownst to the transplant surgeons. [When the kidney was transplanted], the recipient developed widespread metastatic kidney cancer.
[The recipient] was on immunosuppressive drugs, and so the drugs had to be stopped. [When the immunosuppressive drugs were stopped], the patient’s body rejected the kidney and his cancer disappeared.
That showed me that, in fact, if you could stimulate a strong enough immune reaction, in this case, an [allogeneic] reaction, against foreign tissues from a different individual, that you could make large vascularized, invasive cancers disappear based on immune reactivities. Those were clues that led me toward studying the immune system’s impact on cancer.


From there, how did your work evolve?

Dr. Rosenberg: As chief of the surgery branch at NIH, I began doing research. It was very difficult to manipulate immune cells in the laboratory. They wouldn’t stay alive. But I tried to study immune reactions in patients with cancer to see if there was such a thing as an immune reaction against the cancer. There was no such thing known at the time. There were no cancer antigens and no known immune reactions against the disease in the human.


Around this time, investigators were publishing studies about interleukin-2 (IL-2), or white blood cells known as leukocytes. How did interleukin-2 further your research?

Dr. Rosenberg: The advent of interleukin-2 enabled scientists to grow lymphocytes outside the body. [This] enabled us to grow t-lymphocytes, which are some of the major warriors of the immune system against foreign tissue. After [studying] 66 patients in which we studied interleukin-2 and cells that would develop from it, we finally saw a disappearance of melanoma in a patient that received interleukin-2. And we went on to treat hundreds of patients with that hormone, interleukin-2. In fact, interleukin-2 became the first immunotherapy ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of cancer in humans.

Dr. Rosenberg: [It] led to studies of the mechanism of action of interleukin-2 and to do that, we identified a kind of cell called a tumor infiltrating lymphocyte. What better place, intuitively to look for cells doing battle against the cancer than within the cancer itself?
In 1988, we demonstrated for the first time that transfer of lymphocytes with antitumor activity could cause the regression of melanoma. This was a living drug obtained from melanoma deposits that could be grown outside the body and then readministered to the patient under suitable conditions. Interestingly, [in February the FDA approved that drug as treatment for patients with melanoma]. A company developed it to the point where in multi-institutional studies, they reproduced our results.
And we’ve now emphasized the value of using T cell therapy, t cell transfer, for the treatment of patients with the common solid cancers, the cancers that start anywhere from the colon up through the intestine, the stomach, the pancreas, and the esophagus. Solid tumors such as ovarian cancer, uterine cancer and so on, are also potentially susceptible to this T cell therapy.
We’ve published several papers showing in isolated patients that you could cause major regressions, if not complete regressions, of these solid cancers in the liver, in the breast, the cervix, the colon. That’s a major aspect of what we’re doing now.
I think immunotherapy has come to be recognized as a major fourth arm that can be used to attack cancers, adding to surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.


What guidance would you have for other physician-investigators or young doctors who want to follow in your path?

Dr. Rosenberg: You have to have a broad base of knowledge. You have to be willing to immerse yourself in a problem so that your mind is working on it when you’re doing things where you can only think. [When] you’re taking a shower, [or] waiting at a red light, your mind is working on this problem because you’re immersed in trying to understand it.
You need to have a laser focus on the goals that you have and not get sidetracked by issues that may be interesting but not directly related to the goals that you’re attempting to achieve.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A new grading system designed to improve the assessment of hematological toxicities following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy shows utility for a real-world population, providing much-needed standardization and guidance for management of the potentially life-threatening events.

“Hematotoxicity after CAR T is common and clinically relevant, but it also remains poorly understood [with] a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of grading its clinical management,” said first author Kai Rejeski, MD, in presenting on the findings at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting, held in Spain and jointly sponsored by the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA).

“We hope that this novel grading system helps with this by enabling harmonized reporting using the same nomenclature and allowing the comparison of the expected incidence rates of grade 3 or higher [hematological toxicities] across several disease entities and CAR T products,” said Dr. Rejeski, of the Adult BMT (Blood Marrow Transplant) and Cellular Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.

ICAHT Grading System

In a recent meta-analysis, Dr. Rejeski and his team found that infections are the cause of as many as 49% of non–relapse related deaths after CAR T-cell therapy, representing the most common cause of death and numbering significantly more than the more prominent causes of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity (ICANS), which paradoxically have been the focus of significantly more research. In addition, the authors have reported substantial inconsistency among CAR T centers in the grading and management of the post–CAR T cytopenias that can cause those infections, underscoring the need for better guidelines.

“The narrative around CAR T toxicity has long centered on CRS and ICANS as novel and prototypical side effects with distinct management protocols,” Dr. Rejeski said in an interview. “However, it is cytopenias and the associated infections that drive nonrelapse mortality after CAR T.”

To address the need, the EHA and EBMT established the grading system for Immune Effector Cell–Associated HematoToxicity (ICAHT) that is applicable across disease types, indications, and treatment settings.

The details of the grading system were published in September 2023 in the journal Blood. The new system, which specifically focuses on neutrophil count and timing, importantly addresses the biphasic nature of ICAHT by distinguishing “early” ICAHT, occurring within 30 days of the CAR T administration, and “late” ICAHT, occurring more that 30 days following the treatment.

By contrast, conventional grading scales for CAR T–related cytopenias, such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scale, “neither reflect the unique quality of post–CAR T neutrophil recovery, nor do they reflect the inherent risk of infections due to protracted neutropenia,” the authors report in the study.

Real-World Evaluation

To assess the ICAHT grading system’s relevance in a real-world clinical setting of CAR T-cell therapy recipients, Dr. Rejeski and colleagues conducted a multicenter observational study, published in January 2024 in Blood Advances.

The study involved 549 patients at 12 international CAR T centers treated with BCMA- or CD19- directed CAR T therapy for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies.

Of the patients, 112 were treated for multiple myeloma (MM), 334 for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and 103 for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

Using the grading system, grade 3 (severe) or 4 (life-threatening) ICAHT (n = 125), was found to be strongly associated with key factors including a cumulative duration of severe neutropenia (P < .0001), the presence of multilineage cytopenias, such as severe thrombocytopenia (90%, compared with 46% in nonsevere ICAHT) and severe anemia (92% vs 49%; both P < .001), as well as the use of platelet and red blood cell transfusions.

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was more common in patients with MCL (28%), compared with LBCL (23%) and MM (15%).

Key factors at baseline that were independently associated with severe ICAHT after multivariate adjustment included the presence of bone marrow infiltration, increased serum LDH levels, elevated CAR-HEMATOTOX scores (all P < .001), and receipt of CD28z costimulatory domain products, including axi-cel or brexu-cel (P = .01).

Those with grade 3 or higher ICAHT scores had a significantly higher rate of severe infections, compared with lower ICAHT scores (49% vs 13%; P < .0001), as well as increased nonrelapse mortality (14% vs 4.5%; P < .0001), primarily attributable to fatal infections.

Survival outcomes were also worse with grade 3 or higher ICAHT, including significantly lower rates of 1-year progression-free survival (35% vs 51%) and 1-year overall survival (52% vs 73%; both P < .0001).

Grade 3 or higher ICAHT was also significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (median 21 vs 16 days; P < .0001).

However, contrary to findings from some previous studies, the current study showed no association between ICAHT severity and the prior administration of autologous stem cell transplant.

The number of prior treatment lines was not associated with grade 3 or higher ICAHT. However, grade 3 or higher CRS was more common as a cotoxicity (15% vs 5% without severe ICAHT), as was severe ICANS (26% vs 13%; both P < .001).

Notably, ICAHT grading showed superiority in the prediction of severe infections, compared with CTCAE grading (c-index 0.73 vs 0.55, P < .0001 vs nonsignificant).

While mild to moderate toxicity after CAR T-cell therapy has been associated with more favorable outcomes, the poor survival rates associated with severe ICAHT “underscore that high-grade toxicity and inferior treatment outcomes often go hand-in-hand,” the authors write.

Conversely, “the patients with grade 1 or 2 ICAHT exhibited excellent treatment outcomes in our study,” they point out.

Recommendations in Clinical Practice

For clinical guidance, the ICAHT grading system provides best practice recommendations based on severity for diagnostic work-up and management, such as measures including use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), anti-infective prophylaxis and stem cell boosts.

The authors add that preinfusion scoring systems, including the CAR-HEMATOTOX prognostic score, may be optimized by ICAHT grading in terms of modeling for severe or life-threatening ICAHT as an important endpoint.

“We have had an absence of the standardized severity-based guidelines that we know very well for CRS and ICANS, both in terms of the diagnostic work-up and the grading but also the management,” Dr. Rejeski said at the meeting.

“We hope that the new ICAHT grading focuses future research efforts to not only understand this important side effect better, but also develop specific management strategies that mitigate the risk of infections in high-risk patients,” Dr. Rejeski added.

“The multiply validated CAR-HEMATOTOX score, assessed at time of lymphodepletion, may be helpful in this regard,” he added.

An accompanying editorial published with the guidelines underscored that “this is the first such guideline by a major organization and is a much-needed development for the management of this important CAR T-cell–associated toxicity.”

The improved standardized reporting of ICAHT “could also inform hematotoxicity management protocols,” said the editorial authors, David Qualls, MD, of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and Caron Jacobson, MD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, in Boston, Massachusetts.

“While providing comprehensive recommendations for ICAHT, the EHA/EBMT guidelines also highlight important gaps in our current knowledge of ICAHT, which are significant,” the editorial authors add.

Further commenting, Ulrich Jaeger, MD, a professor of hematology at the Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, agreed that the research fills an important need in post–CAR T-cell therapy management.

“Dr. Rejeski´s work is really seminal in the field and confirmed by validation cohorts in other centers,” he said in an interview. “I think the story is absolutely clear. It will be of increasing importance, with more patients surviving. [The system] will have to be adapted to novel indications as well.”

Dr. Rejeski disclosed ties with Kite/Gilead, Novartis, GMS/Celgene, and Pierre-Fabre. Jaeger reports relationships with Novartis, Gilead Sciences, Celgene/BMS, Janssen, Roche, Miltenyi Biotec, and Innovative Medicines Initiative.

A longitudinal study incorporating two validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools showed that compared with patients with epidermal chronic cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), those with sclerotic and combination disease experienced worse symptoms and quality-of-life (QOL) impairment. Independent of potential confounders, these PROs moreover predicted non-relapse mortality for all three disease subtypes, making PROs potentially useful adjuncts for risk stratification and treatment decisions, the study authors said.

“These two findings highlight the importance of patient-reported outcomes in measuring this disease,” lead author Emily Baumrin, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. The study was published online February 28 in JAMA Dermatology.

Baurmrin_Emily_PA_web.jpg

Symptoms and QOL

The investigators monitored 436 patients from the Chronic GVHD Consortium until December 2020. The Lee Symptom Scale (LSS) skin subscale was used to evaluate symptom burden and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) was used to measure quality of life.

Patients with sclerotic GVHD and combination disease at diagnosis had significantly worse median LSS scores than did those with epidermal disease (25, 35, and 20 points, respectively; P = .01). Patients with sclerotic disease had worse median FACT-BMT scores versus those with epidermal involvement (104 versus 109 points, respectively; P = .08).

Although these scores improved with all skin subtypes, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores remained significantly worse (by 9.0 points and 6.1 points, respectively) for patients with combination and sclerotic disease versus those with epidermal disease after adjusting for potential confounders.

Regarding mortality, every 7-point worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in FACT-BMT score at diagnosis of skin chronic GVHD conferred 9.1% increases in odds of both all-cause mortality and non-relapse mortality, after adjustment for factors such as age and sex. Likewise, for every 11 points worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in LSS skin subscale scores at diagnosis, researchers observed odds increases of 10% in all-cause mortality and 16.4% in non-relapse mortality.

Because patients with combination disease had only slightly more epidermal body surface area (BSA) involvement but significantly higher symptom burden than the other subtypes, the authors added, combination disease may represent a distinct phenotype. “Since we’ve also shown that the severity of patient-reported outcomes is associated with mortality,” Dr. Baumrin said in the interview, “perhaps these patients are at the highest risk of mortality as well.”

[embed:render:related:node:267680]

A growing population

Although many might think of chronic GVHD as rare, she noted, the number of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) survivors living in the United States is growing. In a modeling study published in October of 2013 in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, authors predicted that by 2030, this figure will reach 502,000 — about half of whom will develop chronic GVHD, she said.

With more HCTs being performed each year and ongoing improvements in supportive care, patients are living longer post transplant. “Therefore, many transplant survivors are being taken care of in the community outside of transplant centers.”

Accordingly, Dr. Baumrin said, study findings are relevant to dermatologists in academic and transplant centers and the community who provide skin cancer screenings or other dermatologic care for transplant recipients. “Upon diagnosis of chronic GVHD, the evaluation of disease burden by patient-reported outcome measures may assist in assessing disease severity and response to treatments over time — and to stratify patients at higher risk for mortality and communicate that back to transplant physicians.”

Incorporating PROs into clinical practice might prove especially helpful for patients with sclerotic chronic cutaneous GVHD. Currently, clinicians assess cutaneous GVHD clinically, using parameters including skin thickness. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Skin Score, used in clinical trials, also measures BSA.

“The issue with sclerosis is, it’s hard to determine clinical severity based on physical examination alone,” Dr. Baumrin said. It can be difficult to quantify skin thickness and changes over time. “So it’s hard to detect improvements, which are often slow. Patient-reported outcome measures may be a more sensitive way to detect response to treatment than our clinical assessments, which are often crude for sclerotic disease.”

In a secondary analysis of the phase 2 clinical trial of belumosudil, a treatment for chronic GVHD, published in October 2022 in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, response rate was around 30% measured by NIH Skin Score and 77% by PROs. “Our clinical examination in sclerotic type disease falls short in terms of determining therapeutic benefit. PROs might complement those clinical measures,” she said.

Future research will involve determining and validating which PROs matter most clinically and to patients, added Dr. Baumrin. Although widely used in evaluating transplant patients, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores may not represent patients’ experience of living with cutaneous chronic GVHD as effectively as might other tools such as the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, she explained.

Study strengths included authors’ use of well-validated PROs rather than novel unvalidated measures, Sandra A. Mitchell, PhD, CRNP, of the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, and Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, of the Dermatology Branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), Bethesda, Maryland, wrote in an accompanying editorial in JAMA Dermatology. However, they added, incorporating causes of death might have revealed that the excess mortality associated with sclerotic disease stemmed at least partly from adverse effects of prolonged immunosuppression, particularly infection.

If future studies establish this to be the case, said Dr. Baumrin, reducing immunosuppression might be warranted for these patients. “And if death is primarily due to chronic GVHD itself, maybe we should treat more aggressively. PROs can help guide this decision.”

The study was supported by the NIH/NIAMS and the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Baumrin and three coauthors report no relevant financial relationships; other authors had disclosures related to several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Cowen had no disclosures.

A longitudinal study incorporating two validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools showed that compared with patients with epidermal chronic cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), those with sclerotic and combination disease experienced worse symptoms and quality-of-life (QOL) impairment. Independent of potential confounders, these PROs moreover predicted non-relapse mortality for all three disease subtypes, making PROs potentially useful adjuncts for risk stratification and treatment decisions, the study authors said.

“These two findings highlight the importance of patient-reported outcomes in measuring this disease,” lead author Emily Baumrin, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. The study was published online February 28 in JAMA Dermatology.

Baurmrin_Emily_PA_web.jpg

Symptoms and QOL

The investigators monitored 436 patients from the Chronic GVHD Consortium until December 2020. The Lee Symptom Scale (LSS) skin subscale was used to evaluate symptom burden and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) was used to measure quality of life.

Patients with sclerotic GVHD and combination disease at diagnosis had significantly worse median LSS scores than did those with epidermal disease (25, 35, and 20 points, respectively; P = .01). Patients with sclerotic disease had worse median FACT-BMT scores versus those with epidermal involvement (104 versus 109 points, respectively; P = .08).

Although these scores improved with all skin subtypes, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores remained significantly worse (by 9.0 points and 6.1 points, respectively) for patients with combination and sclerotic disease versus those with epidermal disease after adjusting for potential confounders.

Regarding mortality, every 7-point worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in FACT-BMT score at diagnosis of skin chronic GVHD conferred 9.1% increases in odds of both all-cause mortality and non-relapse mortality, after adjustment for factors such as age and sex. Likewise, for every 11 points worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in LSS skin subscale scores at diagnosis, researchers observed odds increases of 10% in all-cause mortality and 16.4% in non-relapse mortality.

Because patients with combination disease had only slightly more epidermal body surface area (BSA) involvement but significantly higher symptom burden than the other subtypes, the authors added, combination disease may represent a distinct phenotype. “Since we’ve also shown that the severity of patient-reported outcomes is associated with mortality,” Dr. Baumrin said in the interview, “perhaps these patients are at the highest risk of mortality as well.”

[embed:render:related:node:267680]

A growing population

Although many might think of chronic GVHD as rare, she noted, the number of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) survivors living in the United States is growing. In a modeling study published in October of 2013 in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, authors predicted that by 2030, this figure will reach 502,000 — about half of whom will develop chronic GVHD, she said.

With more HCTs being performed each year and ongoing improvements in supportive care, patients are living longer post transplant. “Therefore, many transplant survivors are being taken care of in the community outside of transplant centers.”

Accordingly, Dr. Baumrin said, study findings are relevant to dermatologists in academic and transplant centers and the community who provide skin cancer screenings or other dermatologic care for transplant recipients. “Upon diagnosis of chronic GVHD, the evaluation of disease burden by patient-reported outcome measures may assist in assessing disease severity and response to treatments over time — and to stratify patients at higher risk for mortality and communicate that back to transplant physicians.”

Incorporating PROs into clinical practice might prove especially helpful for patients with sclerotic chronic cutaneous GVHD. Currently, clinicians assess cutaneous GVHD clinically, using parameters including skin thickness. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Skin Score, used in clinical trials, also measures BSA.

“The issue with sclerosis is, it’s hard to determine clinical severity based on physical examination alone,” Dr. Baumrin said. It can be difficult to quantify skin thickness and changes over time. “So it’s hard to detect improvements, which are often slow. Patient-reported outcome measures may be a more sensitive way to detect response to treatment than our clinical assessments, which are often crude for sclerotic disease.”

In a secondary analysis of the phase 2 clinical trial of belumosudil, a treatment for chronic GVHD, published in October 2022 in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, response rate was around 30% measured by NIH Skin Score and 77% by PROs. “Our clinical examination in sclerotic type disease falls short in terms of determining therapeutic benefit. PROs might complement those clinical measures,” she said.

Future research will involve determining and validating which PROs matter most clinically and to patients, added Dr. Baumrin. Although widely used in evaluating transplant patients, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores may not represent patients’ experience of living with cutaneous chronic GVHD as effectively as might other tools such as the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, she explained.

Study strengths included authors’ use of well-validated PROs rather than novel unvalidated measures, Sandra A. Mitchell, PhD, CRNP, of the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, and Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, of the Dermatology Branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), Bethesda, Maryland, wrote in an accompanying editorial in JAMA Dermatology. However, they added, incorporating causes of death might have revealed that the excess mortality associated with sclerotic disease stemmed at least partly from adverse effects of prolonged immunosuppression, particularly infection.

If future studies establish this to be the case, said Dr. Baumrin, reducing immunosuppression might be warranted for these patients. “And if death is primarily due to chronic GVHD itself, maybe we should treat more aggressively. PROs can help guide this decision.”

The study was supported by the NIH/NIAMS and the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Baumrin and three coauthors report no relevant financial relationships; other authors had disclosures related to several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Cowen had no disclosures.

A longitudinal study incorporating two validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools showed that compared with patients with epidermal chronic cutaneous graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), those with sclerotic and combination disease experienced worse symptoms and quality-of-life (QOL) impairment. Independent of potential confounders, these PROs moreover predicted non-relapse mortality for all three disease subtypes, making PROs potentially useful adjuncts for risk stratification and treatment decisions, the study authors said.

“These two findings highlight the importance of patient-reported outcomes in measuring this disease,” lead author Emily Baumrin, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. The study was published online February 28 in JAMA Dermatology.

Baurmrin_Emily_PA_web.jpg

Symptoms and QOL

The investigators monitored 436 patients from the Chronic GVHD Consortium until December 2020. The Lee Symptom Scale (LSS) skin subscale was used to evaluate symptom burden and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) was used to measure quality of life.

Patients with sclerotic GVHD and combination disease at diagnosis had significantly worse median LSS scores than did those with epidermal disease (25, 35, and 20 points, respectively; P = .01). Patients with sclerotic disease had worse median FACT-BMT scores versus those with epidermal involvement (104 versus 109 points, respectively; P = .08).

Although these scores improved with all skin subtypes, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores remained significantly worse (by 9.0 points and 6.1 points, respectively) for patients with combination and sclerotic disease versus those with epidermal disease after adjusting for potential confounders.

Regarding mortality, every 7-point worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in FACT-BMT score at diagnosis of skin chronic GVHD conferred 9.1% increases in odds of both all-cause mortality and non-relapse mortality, after adjustment for factors such as age and sex. Likewise, for every 11 points worsening (clinically meaningful difference) in LSS skin subscale scores at diagnosis, researchers observed odds increases of 10% in all-cause mortality and 16.4% in non-relapse mortality.

Because patients with combination disease had only slightly more epidermal body surface area (BSA) involvement but significantly higher symptom burden than the other subtypes, the authors added, combination disease may represent a distinct phenotype. “Since we’ve also shown that the severity of patient-reported outcomes is associated with mortality,” Dr. Baumrin said in the interview, “perhaps these patients are at the highest risk of mortality as well.”

[embed:render:related:node:267680]

A growing population

Although many might think of chronic GVHD as rare, she noted, the number of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) survivors living in the United States is growing. In a modeling study published in October of 2013 in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, authors predicted that by 2030, this figure will reach 502,000 — about half of whom will develop chronic GVHD, she said.

With more HCTs being performed each year and ongoing improvements in supportive care, patients are living longer post transplant. “Therefore, many transplant survivors are being taken care of in the community outside of transplant centers.”

Accordingly, Dr. Baumrin said, study findings are relevant to dermatologists in academic and transplant centers and the community who provide skin cancer screenings or other dermatologic care for transplant recipients. “Upon diagnosis of chronic GVHD, the evaluation of disease burden by patient-reported outcome measures may assist in assessing disease severity and response to treatments over time — and to stratify patients at higher risk for mortality and communicate that back to transplant physicians.”

Incorporating PROs into clinical practice might prove especially helpful for patients with sclerotic chronic cutaneous GVHD. Currently, clinicians assess cutaneous GVHD clinically, using parameters including skin thickness. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Skin Score, used in clinical trials, also measures BSA.

“The issue with sclerosis is, it’s hard to determine clinical severity based on physical examination alone,” Dr. Baumrin said. It can be difficult to quantify skin thickness and changes over time. “So it’s hard to detect improvements, which are often slow. Patient-reported outcome measures may be a more sensitive way to detect response to treatment than our clinical assessments, which are often crude for sclerotic disease.”

In a secondary analysis of the phase 2 clinical trial of belumosudil, a treatment for chronic GVHD, published in October 2022 in Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, response rate was around 30% measured by NIH Skin Score and 77% by PROs. “Our clinical examination in sclerotic type disease falls short in terms of determining therapeutic benefit. PROs might complement those clinical measures,” she said.

Future research will involve determining and validating which PROs matter most clinically and to patients, added Dr. Baumrin. Although widely used in evaluating transplant patients, LSS skin subscale and FACT-BMT scores may not represent patients’ experience of living with cutaneous chronic GVHD as effectively as might other tools such as the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures, she explained.

Study strengths included authors’ use of well-validated PROs rather than novel unvalidated measures, Sandra A. Mitchell, PhD, CRNP, of the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, and Edward W. Cowen, MD, MHSc, of the Dermatology Branch at the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), Bethesda, Maryland, wrote in an accompanying editorial in JAMA Dermatology. However, they added, incorporating causes of death might have revealed that the excess mortality associated with sclerotic disease stemmed at least partly from adverse effects of prolonged immunosuppression, particularly infection.

If future studies establish this to be the case, said Dr. Baumrin, reducing immunosuppression might be warranted for these patients. “And if death is primarily due to chronic GVHD itself, maybe we should treat more aggressively. PROs can help guide this decision.”

The study was supported by the NIH/NIAMS and the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Baumrin and three coauthors report no relevant financial relationships; other authors had disclosures related to several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Mitchell and Dr. Cowen had no disclosures.

Patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) who relapse following hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) show significantly superior survival outcomes when treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy compared with other novel alternative therapies, a real-world analysis of patients in the UK shows.

“This is the first time there is a real-world comparison of CAR-T cell therapy versus other treatments in the era of other novel therapies such as inotuzumab or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs),” said first author Alexandros Rampotas, MD, of the University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. “The study was looking retrospectively at patients treated in the UK, but the results should be applicable to most countries where similar treatments are available.”

Dr. Rampotas presented the research at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting jointly sponsored by the Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

Outcomes when patients with B-ALL relapse after allo-HCT treatment are generally very poor, and while the advent of CAR T-cell therapy has provided significant improvements, additional novel targeted therapies have also joined the field to further improve outcomes.

With no prior studies directly comparing outcomes between the various treatment options in a real-world setting, Dr. Rampotas and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of posttransplant relapsed B-ALL cases at six major transplant centers in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2022.

Of 93 patients with sufficient data for the analysis, 17 had been treated with CAR T-cell therapy: 4 with UCART19, 1 with CD22 CAR T-cell, and 12 with the CD19-directed CAR T-cell products tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) or obecabtagene autoleucel (obe-cel).

Among the remaining 75 patients who received non-CAR T-cell therapies, 24 received TKIs, 11 received blinatumumab, 12 received inotuzumab, 10 received intensive chemotherapy, 3 received intensive chemotherapy and TKI therapy, 14 received palliative/supportive regimens and 1 had a second allo-HCT following relapse from the first.

The median time from relapse to treatment was 2.8 months in the CAR T-cell therapy group, and 0.32 months for those receiving non-CAR T-cell therapies.

“The 2.8-month time-to-treat is quite expected as CAR T-cells can take a while to manufacture and be infused,” Dr. Rampotas noted. “This also comes with the bias that the patients who did receive them were likely fitter and could wait for that long.”

Patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy were also younger (median age 26 versus 47 in the non-CAR T-cell group) but the CAR T-cell group had higher risk disease and had a median of 2 prior lines of therapy versus 1 in the non-CAR T-cell group.

With a median follow-up of 24.8 months, patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy had significantly better rates of overall survival (OS), with 31 months compared with the non-CAR T-cell therapy OS of just 6.4 months (P = .0147).

The patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy also had improved progression-free survival (PFS) over the non-CAR T-cell patients (16.7 vs 3.7 months; P = .0001).

The superior outcomes in the CAR T-cell group remained consistent after exclusion of patients who received palliative approaches.

“In the realm of numerous innovative therapies for B-ALL, CAR Ts have now, for the first time, exhibited superior outcomes over alternative approaches in posttransplant relapsed B-ALL in the real world,” the authors reported. “The clear superior PFS and OS should encourage the use of more CAR T-cell therapies for this challenging cohort, while further improvements are imperative to enhance outcomes.”

In the meantime, “patients who relapse post transplant with B-ALL should be referred for CAR-T cell therapy as it is a superior treatment to other available options,” Dr. Rampotas said.

Dr. Rampotas discloses receiving conference fees from Gilead.

Patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) who relapse following hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) show significantly superior survival outcomes when treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy compared with other novel alternative therapies, a real-world analysis of patients in the UK shows.

“This is the first time there is a real-world comparison of CAR-T cell therapy versus other treatments in the era of other novel therapies such as inotuzumab or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs),” said first author Alexandros Rampotas, MD, of the University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. “The study was looking retrospectively at patients treated in the UK, but the results should be applicable to most countries where similar treatments are available.”

Dr. Rampotas presented the research at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting jointly sponsored by the Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

Outcomes when patients with B-ALL relapse after allo-HCT treatment are generally very poor, and while the advent of CAR T-cell therapy has provided significant improvements, additional novel targeted therapies have also joined the field to further improve outcomes.

With no prior studies directly comparing outcomes between the various treatment options in a real-world setting, Dr. Rampotas and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of posttransplant relapsed B-ALL cases at six major transplant centers in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2022.

Of 93 patients with sufficient data for the analysis, 17 had been treated with CAR T-cell therapy: 4 with UCART19, 1 with CD22 CAR T-cell, and 12 with the CD19-directed CAR T-cell products tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) or obecabtagene autoleucel (obe-cel).

Among the remaining 75 patients who received non-CAR T-cell therapies, 24 received TKIs, 11 received blinatumumab, 12 received inotuzumab, 10 received intensive chemotherapy, 3 received intensive chemotherapy and TKI therapy, 14 received palliative/supportive regimens and 1 had a second allo-HCT following relapse from the first.

The median time from relapse to treatment was 2.8 months in the CAR T-cell therapy group, and 0.32 months for those receiving non-CAR T-cell therapies.

“The 2.8-month time-to-treat is quite expected as CAR T-cells can take a while to manufacture and be infused,” Dr. Rampotas noted. “This also comes with the bias that the patients who did receive them were likely fitter and could wait for that long.”

Patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy were also younger (median age 26 versus 47 in the non-CAR T-cell group) but the CAR T-cell group had higher risk disease and had a median of 2 prior lines of therapy versus 1 in the non-CAR T-cell group.

With a median follow-up of 24.8 months, patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy had significantly better rates of overall survival (OS), with 31 months compared with the non-CAR T-cell therapy OS of just 6.4 months (P = .0147).

The patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy also had improved progression-free survival (PFS) over the non-CAR T-cell patients (16.7 vs 3.7 months; P = .0001).

The superior outcomes in the CAR T-cell group remained consistent after exclusion of patients who received palliative approaches.

“In the realm of numerous innovative therapies for B-ALL, CAR Ts have now, for the first time, exhibited superior outcomes over alternative approaches in posttransplant relapsed B-ALL in the real world,” the authors reported. “The clear superior PFS and OS should encourage the use of more CAR T-cell therapies for this challenging cohort, while further improvements are imperative to enhance outcomes.”

In the meantime, “patients who relapse post transplant with B-ALL should be referred for CAR-T cell therapy as it is a superior treatment to other available options,” Dr. Rampotas said.

Dr. Rampotas discloses receiving conference fees from Gilead.

Patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) who relapse following hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) show significantly superior survival outcomes when treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy compared with other novel alternative therapies, a real-world analysis of patients in the UK shows.

“This is the first time there is a real-world comparison of CAR-T cell therapy versus other treatments in the era of other novel therapies such as inotuzumab or tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs),” said first author Alexandros Rampotas, MD, of the University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. “The study was looking retrospectively at patients treated in the UK, but the results should be applicable to most countries where similar treatments are available.”

Dr. Rampotas presented the research at the 6th European CAR T-cell Meeting jointly sponsored by the Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation and the European Hematology Association.

Outcomes when patients with B-ALL relapse after allo-HCT treatment are generally very poor, and while the advent of CAR T-cell therapy has provided significant improvements, additional novel targeted therapies have also joined the field to further improve outcomes.

With no prior studies directly comparing outcomes between the various treatment options in a real-world setting, Dr. Rampotas and colleagues conducted a retrospective analysis of posttransplant relapsed B-ALL cases at six major transplant centers in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2022.

Of 93 patients with sufficient data for the analysis, 17 had been treated with CAR T-cell therapy: 4 with UCART19, 1 with CD22 CAR T-cell, and 12 with the CD19-directed CAR T-cell products tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) or obecabtagene autoleucel (obe-cel).

Among the remaining 75 patients who received non-CAR T-cell therapies, 24 received TKIs, 11 received blinatumumab, 12 received inotuzumab, 10 received intensive chemotherapy, 3 received intensive chemotherapy and TKI therapy, 14 received palliative/supportive regimens and 1 had a second allo-HCT following relapse from the first.

The median time from relapse to treatment was 2.8 months in the CAR T-cell therapy group, and 0.32 months for those receiving non-CAR T-cell therapies.

“The 2.8-month time-to-treat is quite expected as CAR T-cells can take a while to manufacture and be infused,” Dr. Rampotas noted. “This also comes with the bias that the patients who did receive them were likely fitter and could wait for that long.”

Patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy were also younger (median age 26 versus 47 in the non-CAR T-cell group) but the CAR T-cell group had higher risk disease and had a median of 2 prior lines of therapy versus 1 in the non-CAR T-cell group.

With a median follow-up of 24.8 months, patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy had significantly better rates of overall survival (OS), with 31 months compared with the non-CAR T-cell therapy OS of just 6.4 months (P = .0147).

The patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy also had improved progression-free survival (PFS) over the non-CAR T-cell patients (16.7 vs 3.7 months; P = .0001).

The superior outcomes in the CAR T-cell group remained consistent after exclusion of patients who received palliative approaches.

“In the realm of numerous innovative therapies for B-ALL, CAR Ts have now, for the first time, exhibited superior outcomes over alternative approaches in posttransplant relapsed B-ALL in the real world,” the authors reported. “The clear superior PFS and OS should encourage the use of more CAR T-cell therapies for this challenging cohort, while further improvements are imperative to enhance outcomes.”

In the meantime, “patients who relapse post transplant with B-ALL should be referred for CAR-T cell therapy as it is a superior treatment to other available options,” Dr. Rampotas said.

Dr. Rampotas discloses receiving conference fees from Gilead.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued a reminder to healthcare professionals regarding the potential serious adverse reactions associated with Paxlovid when administered in combination with specific immunosuppressants.

These immunosuppressants, encompassing calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and ciclosporin) and mTOR inhibitors (everolimus and sirolimus), possess a narrow safe dosage range. They are recognized for their role in diminishing the activity of the immune system and are typically prescribed for autoimmune conditions and organ transplant recipients.

The highlighted risk arises due to drug-drug interactions, which can compromise the body’s ability to eliminate these medicines effectively.

Paxlovid, also known as nirmatrelvir with ritonavir, is an antiviral medication used to treat COVID-19 in adults who do not require supplemental oxygen and who are at an increased risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. It should be administered as soon as possible after a diagnosis of COVID-19 has been made and within 5 days of symptom onset.

Conditional marketing authorization for Paxlovid was granted across the European Union (EU) on January 28, 2022, and subsequently transitioned to full marketing authorization on February 24, 2023.

Developed by Pfizer, Paxlovid exhibited an 89% reduction in the risk for hospitalization or death among unvaccinated individuals in a phase 2-3 clinical trial. This led the National Institutes of Health to prioritize Paxlovid over other COVID-19 treatments. Subsequent real-world studies have affirmed its effectiveness, even among the vaccinated.

When combining Paxlovid with tacrolimus, ciclosporin, everolimus, or sirolimus, healthcare professionals need to actively monitor their blood levels. This proactive approach is essential to mitigate the risk for drug-drug interactions and potential serious reactions. They should collaborate with a multidisciplinary team of specialists to navigate the complexities of administering these medications concurrently.

Further, Paxlovid must not be coadministered with medications highly reliant on CYP3A liver enzymes for elimination, such as the immunosuppressant voclosporin. When administered together, there is a risk for these drugs interfering with each other’s metabolism, potentially leading to altered blood levels, reduced effectiveness, or an increased risk for adverse reactions.

After a thorough review, PRAC has highlighted potential serious adverse reactions, including fatal cases, due to drug interactions between Paxlovid and specified immunosuppressants. Thus, it issued a direct healthcare professional communication (DHPC) to emphasize the recognized risk for these interactions, as previously outlined in Paxlovid’s product information.

The DHPC for Paxlovid will undergo further evaluation by EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use and, upon adoption, will be disseminated to healthcare professionals. The communication plan will include publication on the DHPCs page and in national registers across EU Member States.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

In a joint discussion with European counterparts, the top US regulator for cancer medicines called for the streamlining of processes for testing oncology medicines and for a greater focus on designing research that answers the most important questions raised by physicians and their patients.

Richard Pazdur, MD, who leads the cancer division at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said there’s a need to simplify the paperwork involved in clinical trials. Before joining the FDA in 1999, Dr. Pazdur participated in and published cancer research. He says the informed consent forms used for studies have grown too elaborate over the years, such that they can intimidate even experts.

“When I read informed consents now in clinical trials, folks, it gives me a headache. Okay, I can’t follow them,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Dr. Pazdur said informed consent forms can be “mind-boggling” these days.

“They’re so damn complicated with so many damn questions being answered,” he said. “So our point is what’s the essential question that you need answered and what’s the quickest way of answering that question with the least amount of data that can be collected?”

Dr. Pazdur made these comments during a joint meeting of the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

The meeting was a broad discussion about how to build on the successes seen in treatment of blood cancers in the past two decades. No formal recommendations were introduced or considered at the meeting. Instead, the meeting served as a chance for oncologists and patients to discuss ways to more quickly and efficiently address the key questions in drug research: Do medicines deliver a significant benefit to patients?

Dr. Pazdur also said at the meeting that there needs to be a way to attract more people to enroll in clinical trials.

“When I started in oncology, it was about 5%. When I’m sitting here now, 40 years later, it’s 5%. Basically it hasn’t moved,” he said at the discussion, held on February 1.

Ellin Berman, MD, of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, spoke at the meeting about the changes she has witnessed in her career in oncology. Until 2001, there were limited drug options, and physicians tried to get patients to transplant teams as possible. Then the FDA in 2001 approved imatinib to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) that has the Philadelphia chromosome. That set the stage, Dr. Berman said, for a sea change in treatment of CML.

“The fellows now have no idea what it is like to talk to a CML patient about transplant and the question is which among the treasures we have of drugs do we start people on? And that’s always a conversation,” Dr. Berman said.

She noted that advances in treatment have also let some female patients get pregnant and have children.

“We have at least half a dozen women who bring their kids to clinic. And boy, if that doesn’t bring tears to our eyes, our collective eyes, I don’t know what does,” she said.

Dr. Pazdur also recalled his experience treating patients in the 1970s and 1980s for cancers for which “you had nothing so to speak” in terms of effective treatment.

“So then ask yourself the question, what would their stories be now?” with the many options available, Dr. Pazdur said.

 

Seeking clinician feedback

To try to improve the development and testing of cancer drugs, the FDA is seeking to get more feedback from clinicians about which questions trials should address, Dr. Pazdur said.

The agency is considering a way to poll clinicians on what their most crucial questions are about the medicines, he said. Better design of trial questions might serve to improve enrollment in studies.

“What we’re thinking of doing is taking the common disease areas and asking clinicians what are the five basic questions that you want answered in the next 5 years,” he said.

He cited PD-1 drugs as a possible example of a class where regulators could consider new approaches. There could be a discussion about the safety data collection for this class of drugs, which has been used by millions of patients.

Dr. Pazdur said he has been discussing these kinds of themes with his European and Japanese counterparts, who also are interested in simplifying clinical trials.

The goal is to have trials better represent real-world experiences rather than “artificial” ones created when patients must meet extensive eligibility requirements. Improved use of emerging technologies could aid in the needed streamlining, Dr. Pazdur said.

“As an oncology community, we have made our lives somewhat too complicated and need to draw back and ask the basic questions,” Dr. Pazdur said.

Once the standard treatment for adult patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), stem cell transplants have fallen out of favor somewhat in recent years, with immunotherapy and pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimens moving to the forefront. But hematologists differ on how to treat relapsed/refractory patients with Philadelphia-chromosome negative (Ph-negative) ALL who are minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) are still part of the hematology armamentarium for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with Ph-negative ALL who are MRD positive. However, when asked about the best treatment strategy for patients who are MRD-negative, hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview, “There is no firm consensus about that.”

Discussing how medicine has evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, Dr. Litzow recalled that HSCT used to be standard treatment for adult patients with ALL. “We felt that in most instances, chemotherapy alone was not going to be effective in curing them. A vast majority would relapse,” he said. Nowadays, however, specialists differ on the use of HSCT in patients with Ph-negative, MRD-negative ALL.

A pair of commentaries in the January issue of The Lancet Hematology tackle this topic from different perspectives. On one hand, hematologist Patrice Chevallier, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, argues that for such patients, HSCT “remains a valid option,”and MRD status shouldn’t be the sole factor used for a decision.

However, hematologist Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Paris Cité University, contends that detectable early MRD is the “only robust predictor” of HSCT benefit in patients under 60 with Ph-negative ALL, and it has “unproven” benefit in older patients.

As Dr. Chevallier notes, “allogeneic HSCT is indicated in patients defined as having a high risk of relapse. Currently, a high level of residual leukemic cells after treatment is recognized as the strongest, and sometimes sole, criterion defining high-risk patients.”

As first- and second-line therapy in pediatric patients and as first-line therapy in adults, the “rule” is to offer HSCT to MRD-positive patients but not MRD-negative ones, he writes. “In older patients and those who are relapsed or refractory, the recent demonstration of efficient immunotherapies and cell therapies has launched the debate on the role of MRD status and the question of whether or not to transplant patients who are MRD-negative in both settings.”

Dr. Chevallier notes that “there is no standard definition of an MRD-negative status,” and the best timing for evaluation is unknown. Further, he adds, a “variable proportion of MRD-negative patients still relapse after treatment — up to 25% of patients who respond early and more than 50% of patients who respond late.”

He also points out that there’s an 80% chance that patients will convert from MRD negative to MRD positive after blinatumomab therapy, and he highlights the low long-term survival rate (20%) after brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), a CAR T-cell therapy.

As for older patients, Dr. Chevallier observes that improved chemo-immunotherapy and conditioning regimens could spark a rethinking of the feasibility of HSCT. However, for now, in those patients, “MRD is not decisional, and allogeneic HSCT is not a routine practice,” he writes.

In his commentary, Dr. Boissel points out that there have been no controlled studies of HSCT in the first-remission setting, although he writes that some data suggests that HSCT may be helpful for patients in high-risk genetic subgroups, regardless of MRD status. On the other hand, “converging observations suggest no benefit of HSCT in MRD-positive patients treated with blinatumomab in the front-line setting.”

If MRD monitoring is unavailable, Dr. Boissel adds, “it seems reasonable to use early blast clearance or other baseline high-risk features to indicate HSCT.”

How can hematologists make the best decision about HSCT?

In an interview, City of Hope Medical Center (Duarte, California) hematologist-oncologist Ibrahim T. Aldoss, MD, said that chemotherapy — with or without immunotherapy — can often be enough to treat younger patients without high-risk genetic factors. “Potentially, these patients can be spared from transplants,” he said, although patients with resistant MRD “clearly need transplants.”

The risks of transplants are significant, he noted. While they can reduce the risk of relapse, the risk of dying during remission is higher vs chemotherapy. “So you have to balance the risks that you’re willing to take,” he said, keeping in mind that some patients can be cured with chemotherapy.

In addition, Dr. Aldoss said, acute graft-versus-host disease in the first few months after transplant can become chronic. “Many years later, patients can be struggling to where it actually impacts their daily activity. And unfortunately, patients can die from it.”

In the big picture, “you cannot have a generalized statement about whether you shouldn’t do transplants in every MRD-negative patient,” he said. However, “if you do achieve MRD negativity, most patients likely don’t need transplants.”

The Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Litzow urged colleagues to consider several factors when making decisions. Do patients have a high level of comorbidities that would raise the risk of death from HSCT? He noted that there’s nearly a 20% risk of death from HSCT, and comorbidities can boost the risk to 40%-50%.

Also, does the patient have a suitable donor? While advances have boosted the number of eligible donors, he said, “not everybody has an ideal donor.”

If a patient is MRD-negative but not a good candidate for a transplant, Dr. Litzow said consolidation therapy followed by maintenance therapy may be indicated. “Continue to check their bone marrow and their blood periodically as they’re going through treatment and reassess their MRD status to make sure they’re staying negative. If they turn MRD-positive during the course of their therapy, then we have to step back and rethink the role of transplant.”

As for cost, Dr. Litzow points out that HSCT is very expensive, although ALL is an accepted indication for HSCT. However, “if someone doesn’t have medical insurance, then it can be difficult to consider them having a transplant.”

What’s next? In his commentary, Dr. Boissel writes that his team aims to study whether HSCT is helpful in patients with high-risk B-cell ALL “who reach MRD negativity after a consolidation phase including blinatumomab.”

Dr. Aldoss discloses relationships with Amgen, Kite, Pfizer, Jazz, AbbVie, Sobi, Agios, Autolus, and MacroGenics. Dr. Litzow reports ties with Amgen. Dr. Boissel declares relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Chevallier has no disclosures.

Once the standard treatment for adult patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), stem cell transplants have fallen out of favor somewhat in recent years, with immunotherapy and pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimens moving to the forefront. But hematologists differ on how to treat relapsed/refractory patients with Philadelphia-chromosome negative (Ph-negative) ALL who are minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) are still part of the hematology armamentarium for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with Ph-negative ALL who are MRD positive. However, when asked about the best treatment strategy for patients who are MRD-negative, hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview, “There is no firm consensus about that.”

Discussing how medicine has evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, Dr. Litzow recalled that HSCT used to be standard treatment for adult patients with ALL. “We felt that in most instances, chemotherapy alone was not going to be effective in curing them. A vast majority would relapse,” he said. Nowadays, however, specialists differ on the use of HSCT in patients with Ph-negative, MRD-negative ALL.

A pair of commentaries in the January issue of The Lancet Hematology tackle this topic from different perspectives. On one hand, hematologist Patrice Chevallier, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, argues that for such patients, HSCT “remains a valid option,”and MRD status shouldn’t be the sole factor used for a decision.

However, hematologist Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Paris Cité University, contends that detectable early MRD is the “only robust predictor” of HSCT benefit in patients under 60 with Ph-negative ALL, and it has “unproven” benefit in older patients.

As Dr. Chevallier notes, “allogeneic HSCT is indicated in patients defined as having a high risk of relapse. Currently, a high level of residual leukemic cells after treatment is recognized as the strongest, and sometimes sole, criterion defining high-risk patients.”

As first- and second-line therapy in pediatric patients and as first-line therapy in adults, the “rule” is to offer HSCT to MRD-positive patients but not MRD-negative ones, he writes. “In older patients and those who are relapsed or refractory, the recent demonstration of efficient immunotherapies and cell therapies has launched the debate on the role of MRD status and the question of whether or not to transplant patients who are MRD-negative in both settings.”

Dr. Chevallier notes that “there is no standard definition of an MRD-negative status,” and the best timing for evaluation is unknown. Further, he adds, a “variable proportion of MRD-negative patients still relapse after treatment — up to 25% of patients who respond early and more than 50% of patients who respond late.”

He also points out that there’s an 80% chance that patients will convert from MRD negative to MRD positive after blinatumomab therapy, and he highlights the low long-term survival rate (20%) after brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), a CAR T-cell therapy.

As for older patients, Dr. Chevallier observes that improved chemo-immunotherapy and conditioning regimens could spark a rethinking of the feasibility of HSCT. However, for now, in those patients, “MRD is not decisional, and allogeneic HSCT is not a routine practice,” he writes.

In his commentary, Dr. Boissel points out that there have been no controlled studies of HSCT in the first-remission setting, although he writes that some data suggests that HSCT may be helpful for patients in high-risk genetic subgroups, regardless of MRD status. On the other hand, “converging observations suggest no benefit of HSCT in MRD-positive patients treated with blinatumomab in the front-line setting.”

If MRD monitoring is unavailable, Dr. Boissel adds, “it seems reasonable to use early blast clearance or other baseline high-risk features to indicate HSCT.”

How can hematologists make the best decision about HSCT?

In an interview, City of Hope Medical Center (Duarte, California) hematologist-oncologist Ibrahim T. Aldoss, MD, said that chemotherapy — with or without immunotherapy — can often be enough to treat younger patients without high-risk genetic factors. “Potentially, these patients can be spared from transplants,” he said, although patients with resistant MRD “clearly need transplants.”

The risks of transplants are significant, he noted. While they can reduce the risk of relapse, the risk of dying during remission is higher vs chemotherapy. “So you have to balance the risks that you’re willing to take,” he said, keeping in mind that some patients can be cured with chemotherapy.

In addition, Dr. Aldoss said, acute graft-versus-host disease in the first few months after transplant can become chronic. “Many years later, patients can be struggling to where it actually impacts their daily activity. And unfortunately, patients can die from it.”

In the big picture, “you cannot have a generalized statement about whether you shouldn’t do transplants in every MRD-negative patient,” he said. However, “if you do achieve MRD negativity, most patients likely don’t need transplants.”

The Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Litzow urged colleagues to consider several factors when making decisions. Do patients have a high level of comorbidities that would raise the risk of death from HSCT? He noted that there’s nearly a 20% risk of death from HSCT, and comorbidities can boost the risk to 40%-50%.

Also, does the patient have a suitable donor? While advances have boosted the number of eligible donors, he said, “not everybody has an ideal donor.”

If a patient is MRD-negative but not a good candidate for a transplant, Dr. Litzow said consolidation therapy followed by maintenance therapy may be indicated. “Continue to check their bone marrow and their blood periodically as they’re going through treatment and reassess their MRD status to make sure they’re staying negative. If they turn MRD-positive during the course of their therapy, then we have to step back and rethink the role of transplant.”

As for cost, Dr. Litzow points out that HSCT is very expensive, although ALL is an accepted indication for HSCT. However, “if someone doesn’t have medical insurance, then it can be difficult to consider them having a transplant.”

What’s next? In his commentary, Dr. Boissel writes that his team aims to study whether HSCT is helpful in patients with high-risk B-cell ALL “who reach MRD negativity after a consolidation phase including blinatumomab.”

Dr. Aldoss discloses relationships with Amgen, Kite, Pfizer, Jazz, AbbVie, Sobi, Agios, Autolus, and MacroGenics. Dr. Litzow reports ties with Amgen. Dr. Boissel declares relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Chevallier has no disclosures.

Once the standard treatment for adult patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), stem cell transplants have fallen out of favor somewhat in recent years, with immunotherapy and pediatric-inspired chemotherapy regimens moving to the forefront. But hematologists differ on how to treat relapsed/refractory patients with Philadelphia-chromosome negative (Ph-negative) ALL who are minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCT) are still part of the hematology armamentarium for relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients with Ph-negative ALL who are MRD positive. However, when asked about the best treatment strategy for patients who are MRD-negative, hematologist Mark R. Litzow, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said in an interview, “There is no firm consensus about that.”

Discussing how medicine has evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, Dr. Litzow recalled that HSCT used to be standard treatment for adult patients with ALL. “We felt that in most instances, chemotherapy alone was not going to be effective in curing them. A vast majority would relapse,” he said. Nowadays, however, specialists differ on the use of HSCT in patients with Ph-negative, MRD-negative ALL.

A pair of commentaries in the January issue of The Lancet Hematology tackle this topic from different perspectives. On one hand, hematologist Patrice Chevallier, MD, of the University of Nantes in France, argues that for such patients, HSCT “remains a valid option,”and MRD status shouldn’t be the sole factor used for a decision.

However, hematologist Nicolas Boissel, MD, PhD, of Paris Cité University, contends that detectable early MRD is the “only robust predictor” of HSCT benefit in patients under 60 with Ph-negative ALL, and it has “unproven” benefit in older patients.

As Dr. Chevallier notes, “allogeneic HSCT is indicated in patients defined as having a high risk of relapse. Currently, a high level of residual leukemic cells after treatment is recognized as the strongest, and sometimes sole, criterion defining high-risk patients.”

As first- and second-line therapy in pediatric patients and as first-line therapy in adults, the “rule” is to offer HSCT to MRD-positive patients but not MRD-negative ones, he writes. “In older patients and those who are relapsed or refractory, the recent demonstration of efficient immunotherapies and cell therapies has launched the debate on the role of MRD status and the question of whether or not to transplant patients who are MRD-negative in both settings.”

Dr. Chevallier notes that “there is no standard definition of an MRD-negative status,” and the best timing for evaluation is unknown. Further, he adds, a “variable proportion of MRD-negative patients still relapse after treatment — up to 25% of patients who respond early and more than 50% of patients who respond late.”

He also points out that there’s an 80% chance that patients will convert from MRD negative to MRD positive after blinatumomab therapy, and he highlights the low long-term survival rate (20%) after brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), a CAR T-cell therapy.

As for older patients, Dr. Chevallier observes that improved chemo-immunotherapy and conditioning regimens could spark a rethinking of the feasibility of HSCT. However, for now, in those patients, “MRD is not decisional, and allogeneic HSCT is not a routine practice,” he writes.

In his commentary, Dr. Boissel points out that there have been no controlled studies of HSCT in the first-remission setting, although he writes that some data suggests that HSCT may be helpful for patients in high-risk genetic subgroups, regardless of MRD status. On the other hand, “converging observations suggest no benefit of HSCT in MRD-positive patients treated with blinatumomab in the front-line setting.”

If MRD monitoring is unavailable, Dr. Boissel adds, “it seems reasonable to use early blast clearance or other baseline high-risk features to indicate HSCT.”

How can hematologists make the best decision about HSCT?

In an interview, City of Hope Medical Center (Duarte, California) hematologist-oncologist Ibrahim T. Aldoss, MD, said that chemotherapy — with or without immunotherapy — can often be enough to treat younger patients without high-risk genetic factors. “Potentially, these patients can be spared from transplants,” he said, although patients with resistant MRD “clearly need transplants.”

The risks of transplants are significant, he noted. While they can reduce the risk of relapse, the risk of dying during remission is higher vs chemotherapy. “So you have to balance the risks that you’re willing to take,” he said, keeping in mind that some patients can be cured with chemotherapy.

In addition, Dr. Aldoss said, acute graft-versus-host disease in the first few months after transplant can become chronic. “Many years later, patients can be struggling to where it actually impacts their daily activity. And unfortunately, patients can die from it.”

In the big picture, “you cannot have a generalized statement about whether you shouldn’t do transplants in every MRD-negative patient,” he said. However, “if you do achieve MRD negativity, most patients likely don’t need transplants.”

The Mayo Clinic’s Dr. Litzow urged colleagues to consider several factors when making decisions. Do patients have a high level of comorbidities that would raise the risk of death from HSCT? He noted that there’s nearly a 20% risk of death from HSCT, and comorbidities can boost the risk to 40%-50%.

Also, does the patient have a suitable donor? While advances have boosted the number of eligible donors, he said, “not everybody has an ideal donor.”

If a patient is MRD-negative but not a good candidate for a transplant, Dr. Litzow said consolidation therapy followed by maintenance therapy may be indicated. “Continue to check their bone marrow and their blood periodically as they’re going through treatment and reassess their MRD status to make sure they’re staying negative. If they turn MRD-positive during the course of their therapy, then we have to step back and rethink the role of transplant.”

As for cost, Dr. Litzow points out that HSCT is very expensive, although ALL is an accepted indication for HSCT. However, “if someone doesn’t have medical insurance, then it can be difficult to consider them having a transplant.”

What’s next? In his commentary, Dr. Boissel writes that his team aims to study whether HSCT is helpful in patients with high-risk B-cell ALL “who reach MRD negativity after a consolidation phase including blinatumomab.”

Dr. Aldoss discloses relationships with Amgen, Kite, Pfizer, Jazz, AbbVie, Sobi, Agios, Autolus, and MacroGenics. Dr. Litzow reports ties with Amgen. Dr. Boissel declares relationships with Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis, and Servier. Dr. Chevallier has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Two frontline therapy combinations for patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant are listed as “preferred” regimens, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. However, a new analysis of real-world patient outcomes suggests that one regimen may be significantly better.

The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.

In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.

For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.

To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. 

After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis. 

During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died. 

The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).

Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.

The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.

Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded. 

The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two frontline therapy combinations for patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant are listed as “preferred” regimens, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. However, a new analysis of real-world patient outcomes suggests that one regimen may be significantly better.

The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.

In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.

For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.

To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. 

After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis. 

During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died. 

The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).

Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.

The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.

Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded. 

The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Two frontline therapy combinations for patients with multiple myeloma who are not eligible for hematopoietic stem cell transplant are listed as “preferred” regimens, according to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. However, a new analysis of real-world patient outcomes suggests that one regimen may be significantly better.

The study found that frontline triple therapy with daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone led to significantly longer time to next treatment or time to death compared with the triple combination that includes bortezomib instead of daratumumab.

In the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled clinical trials, this study may help clinicians make more informed decisions when choosing therapies for patients with newly diagnosed, transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma, said investigator Doris K. Hansen, MD, from the Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, who presented finding from the analysis at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Despite the lack of head-to-head randomized trials in this setting, several indirect comparisons have suggested that the daratumumab regimen carries an efficacy edge.

For instance, an indirect comparison of patients who received the daratumumab regimen in the MAIA trial with those who received the bortezomib regimen in the SWOG S0777 trial revealed a 40% lower risk for disease progression or death among patients treated with daratumumab. Researchers also observed a benefit for the daratumumab regimen — a 32% lower risk for disease progression or death — when comparing patient outcomes in the MAIA and PEGASUS studies.

To more directly compare the efficacy of the two regimens, Dr. Hansen and colleagues combed data from Acentrus, a de-identified academic electronic medical records database, to find patients who started a frontline treatment regimen for multiple myeloma between January 2018 and May 2023. The team used several methods to balance baseline characteristics between cohorts. 

After making these adjustments, the study included data on 302 patients who received frontline therapy with the daratumumab regimen and 341 who received the bortezomib regimen. Patients who underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant before or during therapy were excluded, as were those who had prior primary solid tumors, hematologic malignancies, or amyloidosis. 

During a 20.2-month median follow-up for patients on daratumumab, 98 (32%) switched to a new therapy or died. During a 21.5-month median follow-up for those on bortezomib, 175 (51%) switched treatments or died. 

The median time to death was 37.8 months in the daratumumab group vs 18.7 months in the bortezomib group. Overall, patients who received the daratumumab regimen had a 42% lower risk for death or time-to-next treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; P < .001).

Dr. Hansen acknowledged several limitations of the study, including that the data used came from provider-based records and may be missing patients who saw an out-of-network clinician. The database also does not include information on ECOG performance status, patient frailty, or cytogenetic risk profiles, which may have influenced outcomes.

The outcome measure combined time-to-next treatment and time to death; however, Dr. Hansen noted, time-to-next treatment is not a direct surrogate for progression-free survival.

Overall, findings from this real-world study support the use of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone over bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in this population of transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, Dr. Hansen concluded. 

The study was supported by Janssen. Dr. Hansen reported consulting for Janssen and others, receiving honoraria from OncLive and Survivorship, and other disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The increased risk of vitiligo found in recipients of stem cell and solid organ transplants, especially those who develop graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), requires careful monitoring, according to authors of a study published online in JAMA Dermatology December 13.

In the cohort study, the greatest risk occurred with hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) and in cases involving GVHD. Kidney and liver transplants carried slight increases in risk.

“The findings suggest that early detection and management of vitiligo lesions can be improved by estimating the likelihood of its development in transplant recipients and implementing a multidisciplinary approach for monitoring,” wrote the authors, from the departments of dermatology and biostatistics, at the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul.

Using claims data from South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service database, the investigators compared vitiligo incidence among 23,829 patients who had undergone solid organ transplantation (SOT) or HSCT between 2010 and 2017 versus that of 119,145 age- and sex-matched controls. At a mean observation time of 4.79 years in the transplant group (and 5.12 years for controls), the adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for vitiligo among patients who had undergone any transplant was 1.73. AHRs for HSCT, liver transplants, and kidney transplants were 12.69, 1.63, and 1.50, respectively.

Patients who had undergone allogeneic HSCT (AHR, 14.43) or autologous transplants (AHR, 5.71), as well as those with and without GVHD (24.09 and 8.21, respectively) had significantly higher vitiligo risk than the control group.

Among those with GVHD, HSCT recipients (AHR, 16.42) and those with allogeneic grafts (AHR, 16.81) had a higher vitiligo risk than that of control patients.

In a subgroup that included 10,355 transplant recipients who underwent posttransplant health checkups, investigators found the highest vitiligo risk — AHR, 25.09 versus controls — among HSCT recipients with comorbid GVHD. However, patients who underwent SOT, autologous HSCT, or HSCT without GVHD showed no increased vitiligo risk in this analysis. “The results of health checkup data analysis may differ from the initial analysis due to additional adjustments for lifestyle factors and inclusion of only patients who underwent a health checkup,” the authors wrote.

[embed:render:related:node:266785]

Asked to comment on the results, George Han, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the study, told this news organization, “this is an interesting paper where the primary difference from previous studies is the new association between GVHD in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and vitiligo.” Prior research had shown higher rates of vitiligo in HSCT recipients without making the GVHD distinction. Dr. Han is associate professor of dermatology in the Hofstra/Northwell Department of Dermatology, Hyde Park, New York.

Although GVHD may not be top-of-mind for dermatologists in daily practice, he said, the study enhances their understanding of vitiligo risk in HSCT recipients. “In some ways,” Dr. Han added, “the association makes sense, as the activated T cells from the graft attacking the skin in the HSCT recipient follow many of the mechanisms of vitiligo, including upregulating interferon gamma and the CXCR3/CXCL10 axis.”

Presently, he said, dermatologists worry more about solid organ recipients than about HSCT recipients because the long-term immunosuppression required by SOT increases the risk of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). “However, the risk of skin cancers also seems to be elevated in HSCT recipients, and in this case the basal cell carcinoma (BCC):SCC ratio is not necessarily reversed as we see in solid organ transplant recipients. So the mechanisms are a bit less clear. Interestingly, acute and chronic GVHD have both been associated with increased risks of BCC and SCC/BCC, respectively.”

Overall, Dr. Han said, any transplant recipient should undergo yearly skin checks not only for skin cancers, but also for other skin conditions such as vitiligo. “It would be nice to see this codified into official guidelines, which can vary considerably but are overall more consistent in solid organ transplant recipients than in HSCT recipients. No such guidelines seem to be available for HSCTs.”

The study was funded by the Basic Research in Science & Engineering program through the National Research Foundation of Korea, which is funded by the country’s Ministry of Education. The study authors had no disclosures. Dr. Han reports no relevant financial interests.

The increased risk of vitiligo found in recipients of stem cell and solid organ transplants, especially those who develop graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), requires careful monitoring, according to authors of a study published online in JAMA Dermatology December 13.

In the cohort study, the greatest risk occurred with hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) and in cases involving GVHD. Kidney and liver transplants carried slight increases in risk.

“The findings suggest that early detection and management of vitiligo lesions can be improved by estimating the likelihood of its development in transplant recipients and implementing a multidisciplinary approach for monitoring,” wrote the authors, from the departments of dermatology and biostatistics, at the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul.

Using claims data from South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service database, the investigators compared vitiligo incidence among 23,829 patients who had undergone solid organ transplantation (SOT) or HSCT between 2010 and 2017 versus that of 119,145 age- and sex-matched controls. At a mean observation time of 4.79 years in the transplant group (and 5.12 years for controls), the adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for vitiligo among patients who had undergone any transplant was 1.73. AHRs for HSCT, liver transplants, and kidney transplants were 12.69, 1.63, and 1.50, respectively.

Patients who had undergone allogeneic HSCT (AHR, 14.43) or autologous transplants (AHR, 5.71), as well as those with and without GVHD (24.09 and 8.21, respectively) had significantly higher vitiligo risk than the control group.

Among those with GVHD, HSCT recipients (AHR, 16.42) and those with allogeneic grafts (AHR, 16.81) had a higher vitiligo risk than that of control patients.

In a subgroup that included 10,355 transplant recipients who underwent posttransplant health checkups, investigators found the highest vitiligo risk — AHR, 25.09 versus controls — among HSCT recipients with comorbid GVHD. However, patients who underwent SOT, autologous HSCT, or HSCT without GVHD showed no increased vitiligo risk in this analysis. “The results of health checkup data analysis may differ from the initial analysis due to additional adjustments for lifestyle factors and inclusion of only patients who underwent a health checkup,” the authors wrote.

[embed:render:related:node:266785]

Asked to comment on the results, George Han, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the study, told this news organization, “this is an interesting paper where the primary difference from previous studies is the new association between GVHD in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and vitiligo.” Prior research had shown higher rates of vitiligo in HSCT recipients without making the GVHD distinction. Dr. Han is associate professor of dermatology in the Hofstra/Northwell Department of Dermatology, Hyde Park, New York.

Although GVHD may not be top-of-mind for dermatologists in daily practice, he said, the study enhances their understanding of vitiligo risk in HSCT recipients. “In some ways,” Dr. Han added, “the association makes sense, as the activated T cells from the graft attacking the skin in the HSCT recipient follow many of the mechanisms of vitiligo, including upregulating interferon gamma and the CXCR3/CXCL10 axis.”

Presently, he said, dermatologists worry more about solid organ recipients than about HSCT recipients because the long-term immunosuppression required by SOT increases the risk of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). “However, the risk of skin cancers also seems to be elevated in HSCT recipients, and in this case the basal cell carcinoma (BCC):SCC ratio is not necessarily reversed as we see in solid organ transplant recipients. So the mechanisms are a bit less clear. Interestingly, acute and chronic GVHD have both been associated with increased risks of BCC and SCC/BCC, respectively.”

Overall, Dr. Han said, any transplant recipient should undergo yearly skin checks not only for skin cancers, but also for other skin conditions such as vitiligo. “It would be nice to see this codified into official guidelines, which can vary considerably but are overall more consistent in solid organ transplant recipients than in HSCT recipients. No such guidelines seem to be available for HSCTs.”

The study was funded by the Basic Research in Science & Engineering program through the National Research Foundation of Korea, which is funded by the country’s Ministry of Education. The study authors had no disclosures. Dr. Han reports no relevant financial interests.

The increased risk of vitiligo found in recipients of stem cell and solid organ transplants, especially those who develop graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), requires careful monitoring, according to authors of a study published online in JAMA Dermatology December 13.

In the cohort study, the greatest risk occurred with hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs) and in cases involving GVHD. Kidney and liver transplants carried slight increases in risk.

“The findings suggest that early detection and management of vitiligo lesions can be improved by estimating the likelihood of its development in transplant recipients and implementing a multidisciplinary approach for monitoring,” wrote the authors, from the departments of dermatology and biostatistics, at the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul.

Using claims data from South Korea’s National Health Insurance Service database, the investigators compared vitiligo incidence among 23,829 patients who had undergone solid organ transplantation (SOT) or HSCT between 2010 and 2017 versus that of 119,145 age- and sex-matched controls. At a mean observation time of 4.79 years in the transplant group (and 5.12 years for controls), the adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) for vitiligo among patients who had undergone any transplant was 1.73. AHRs for HSCT, liver transplants, and kidney transplants were 12.69, 1.63, and 1.50, respectively.

Patients who had undergone allogeneic HSCT (AHR, 14.43) or autologous transplants (AHR, 5.71), as well as those with and without GVHD (24.09 and 8.21, respectively) had significantly higher vitiligo risk than the control group.

Among those with GVHD, HSCT recipients (AHR, 16.42) and those with allogeneic grafts (AHR, 16.81) had a higher vitiligo risk than that of control patients.

In a subgroup that included 10,355 transplant recipients who underwent posttransplant health checkups, investigators found the highest vitiligo risk — AHR, 25.09 versus controls — among HSCT recipients with comorbid GVHD. However, patients who underwent SOT, autologous HSCT, or HSCT without GVHD showed no increased vitiligo risk in this analysis. “The results of health checkup data analysis may differ from the initial analysis due to additional adjustments for lifestyle factors and inclusion of only patients who underwent a health checkup,” the authors wrote.

[embed:render:related:node:266785]

Asked to comment on the results, George Han, MD, PhD, who was not involved with the study, told this news organization, “this is an interesting paper where the primary difference from previous studies is the new association between GVHD in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients and vitiligo.” Prior research had shown higher rates of vitiligo in HSCT recipients without making the GVHD distinction. Dr. Han is associate professor of dermatology in the Hofstra/Northwell Department of Dermatology, Hyde Park, New York.

Although GVHD may not be top-of-mind for dermatologists in daily practice, he said, the study enhances their understanding of vitiligo risk in HSCT recipients. “In some ways,” Dr. Han added, “the association makes sense, as the activated T cells from the graft attacking the skin in the HSCT recipient follow many of the mechanisms of vitiligo, including upregulating interferon gamma and the CXCR3/CXCL10 axis.”

Presently, he said, dermatologists worry more about solid organ recipients than about HSCT recipients because the long-term immunosuppression required by SOT increases the risk of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). “However, the risk of skin cancers also seems to be elevated in HSCT recipients, and in this case the basal cell carcinoma (BCC):SCC ratio is not necessarily reversed as we see in solid organ transplant recipients. So the mechanisms are a bit less clear. Interestingly, acute and chronic GVHD have both been associated with increased risks of BCC and SCC/BCC, respectively.”

Overall, Dr. Han said, any transplant recipient should undergo yearly skin checks not only for skin cancers, but also for other skin conditions such as vitiligo. “It would be nice to see this codified into official guidelines, which can vary considerably but are overall more consistent in solid organ transplant recipients than in HSCT recipients. No such guidelines seem to be available for HSCTs.”

The study was funded by the Basic Research in Science & Engineering program through the National Research Foundation of Korea, which is funded by the country’s Ministry of Education. The study authors had no disclosures. Dr. Han reports no relevant financial interests.

SAN DIEGO — Long-term follow-up from the only randomized controlled trial to compare salvage autologous stem cell transplant with a standard two-drug regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma found no benefit to salvage transplant. 

Patients receiving a second, salvage-autologous stem cell transplant alongside lenalidomide-dexamethasone maintenance therapy did not demonstrate improved progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival compared with patients who continued the two-drug regimen without salvage transplant, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The primary phase 3 analysis, published in 2021, showed no survival benefit following salvage transplant at the time of relapse, though it only followed patients for a median of 37 months. 

However, because a significant fraction of patients in the transplant arm — about 29% — did not undergo the planned salvage transplant before dropping out of the study, the researchers performed further analyses that “suggested a survival benefit in patients who actually received the transplant,” first author Marc-Andrea Baertsch, MD, of the German Cancer Research Center and University Hospital Heidelberg, reported at ASH.

Now, the latest analysis, which followed patients for a median of 99 months (8.25 years), confirmed the initial 2021 findings, Dr. Baertsch explained. 

“The writing on the wall is clear: Don’t repeat a transplant at the time of relapse for those who have already gotten a transplant,” said Manni Mohyuddin, MD, of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the research. Dr. Mohyuddin added, however, that this finding doesn’t apply to those who haven’t yet gotten a transplant. “Data from other trials suggests a role of transplant in this situation, depending on the unique circumstances.” 

The current trial included 282 adult patients, aged 75 years or younger, with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Between 2010 and 2016, patients in the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 277) were randomized to lenalidomide-dexamethasone reinduction and maintenance, along with salvage high-dose chemotherapy with melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (n = 139) or just continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone until progression (n = 138). 

Patients in both arms received three cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone up front: 25 mg of lenalidomide on days 1 through 21, and 40 mg of dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 4-week cycles. Those in the salvage transplant arm then received high-dose chemotherapy with 200 mg/m² of melphalan followed by transplant and 10 mg of lenalidomide maintenance therapy daily, while those in the control arm continued with receiving lenalidomide-dexamethasone.

All patients had received one to three prior lines of therapy, had good performance status, and had a time-to-disease-progression of at least 12 months after frontline autologous stem cell transplant.

In the primary 2021 study, patients in the salvage transplant group did not demonstrate a survival benefit (hazard ratio [HR] for PFS, 0.87; HR for overall survival, 0.81). 

In the latest analysis, no survival benefit emerged after following patients for a median of about 8 years. Patients in the salvage transplant arm had a median PFS of 20.5 months vs 19.3 months in the continuous therapy arms (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.27; P = .9). Median overall survival was 67.1 months in the salvage transplant arm and 62.7 months in the continuous treatment arm (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66 - 1.20; P = .44).

Time to first progression after frontline transplant was associated with a PFS benefit but did not predict an overall survival benefit, Dr. Baertsch noted. 

When evaluating outcomes from the time of salvage transplant to account for the high number of dropouts, the PFS and overall survival findings held. Patients who received salvage transplant did not experience significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.91) or overall survival (76.3 months in the salvage group vs 65.9 months in the continuous treatment arm; HR, 0.80). 

The lack of PFS and overall survival benefit occurred across all myeloma subgroups, Dr. Baertsch said. 

Overall, the results indicate that “ a repeat transplant at the time of relapse for patients who had already gotten a transplant previously was no better than continuing a two-drug regimen,” Dr. Mohyuddin said.

However, he noted, “a lot has changed for myeloma care” since this trial was initially conducted. “We now have better regimens available that do not involve a transplant. If a repeat transplant couldn’t beat a two-drug regimen, it surely cannot beat a three drug or four drug regimen.” 

Dr. Baertsch reported no disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — Long-term follow-up from the only randomized controlled trial to compare salvage autologous stem cell transplant with a standard two-drug regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma found no benefit to salvage transplant. 

Patients receiving a second, salvage-autologous stem cell transplant alongside lenalidomide-dexamethasone maintenance therapy did not demonstrate improved progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival compared with patients who continued the two-drug regimen without salvage transplant, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The primary phase 3 analysis, published in 2021, showed no survival benefit following salvage transplant at the time of relapse, though it only followed patients for a median of 37 months. 

However, because a significant fraction of patients in the transplant arm — about 29% — did not undergo the planned salvage transplant before dropping out of the study, the researchers performed further analyses that “suggested a survival benefit in patients who actually received the transplant,” first author Marc-Andrea Baertsch, MD, of the German Cancer Research Center and University Hospital Heidelberg, reported at ASH.

Now, the latest analysis, which followed patients for a median of 99 months (8.25 years), confirmed the initial 2021 findings, Dr. Baertsch explained. 

“The writing on the wall is clear: Don’t repeat a transplant at the time of relapse for those who have already gotten a transplant,” said Manni Mohyuddin, MD, of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the research. Dr. Mohyuddin added, however, that this finding doesn’t apply to those who haven’t yet gotten a transplant. “Data from other trials suggests a role of transplant in this situation, depending on the unique circumstances.” 

The current trial included 282 adult patients, aged 75 years or younger, with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Between 2010 and 2016, patients in the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 277) were randomized to lenalidomide-dexamethasone reinduction and maintenance, along with salvage high-dose chemotherapy with melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (n = 139) or just continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone until progression (n = 138). 

Patients in both arms received three cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone up front: 25 mg of lenalidomide on days 1 through 21, and 40 mg of dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 4-week cycles. Those in the salvage transplant arm then received high-dose chemotherapy with 200 mg/m² of melphalan followed by transplant and 10 mg of lenalidomide maintenance therapy daily, while those in the control arm continued with receiving lenalidomide-dexamethasone.

All patients had received one to three prior lines of therapy, had good performance status, and had a time-to-disease-progression of at least 12 months after frontline autologous stem cell transplant.

In the primary 2021 study, patients in the salvage transplant group did not demonstrate a survival benefit (hazard ratio [HR] for PFS, 0.87; HR for overall survival, 0.81). 

In the latest analysis, no survival benefit emerged after following patients for a median of about 8 years. Patients in the salvage transplant arm had a median PFS of 20.5 months vs 19.3 months in the continuous therapy arms (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.27; P = .9). Median overall survival was 67.1 months in the salvage transplant arm and 62.7 months in the continuous treatment arm (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66 - 1.20; P = .44).

Time to first progression after frontline transplant was associated with a PFS benefit but did not predict an overall survival benefit, Dr. Baertsch noted. 

When evaluating outcomes from the time of salvage transplant to account for the high number of dropouts, the PFS and overall survival findings held. Patients who received salvage transplant did not experience significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.91) or overall survival (76.3 months in the salvage group vs 65.9 months in the continuous treatment arm; HR, 0.80). 

The lack of PFS and overall survival benefit occurred across all myeloma subgroups, Dr. Baertsch said. 

Overall, the results indicate that “ a repeat transplant at the time of relapse for patients who had already gotten a transplant previously was no better than continuing a two-drug regimen,” Dr. Mohyuddin said.

However, he noted, “a lot has changed for myeloma care” since this trial was initially conducted. “We now have better regimens available that do not involve a transplant. If a repeat transplant couldn’t beat a two-drug regimen, it surely cannot beat a three drug or four drug regimen.” 

Dr. Baertsch reported no disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — Long-term follow-up from the only randomized controlled trial to compare salvage autologous stem cell transplant with a standard two-drug regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma found no benefit to salvage transplant. 

Patients receiving a second, salvage-autologous stem cell transplant alongside lenalidomide-dexamethasone maintenance therapy did not demonstrate improved progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival compared with patients who continued the two-drug regimen without salvage transplant, according to research presented at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The primary phase 3 analysis, published in 2021, showed no survival benefit following salvage transplant at the time of relapse, though it only followed patients for a median of 37 months. 

However, because a significant fraction of patients in the transplant arm — about 29% — did not undergo the planned salvage transplant before dropping out of the study, the researchers performed further analyses that “suggested a survival benefit in patients who actually received the transplant,” first author Marc-Andrea Baertsch, MD, of the German Cancer Research Center and University Hospital Heidelberg, reported at ASH.

Now, the latest analysis, which followed patients for a median of 99 months (8.25 years), confirmed the initial 2021 findings, Dr. Baertsch explained. 

“The writing on the wall is clear: Don’t repeat a transplant at the time of relapse for those who have already gotten a transplant,” said Manni Mohyuddin, MD, of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, who was not involved in the research. Dr. Mohyuddin added, however, that this finding doesn’t apply to those who haven’t yet gotten a transplant. “Data from other trials suggests a role of transplant in this situation, depending on the unique circumstances.” 

The current trial included 282 adult patients, aged 75 years or younger, with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Between 2010 and 2016, patients in the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 277) were randomized to lenalidomide-dexamethasone reinduction and maintenance, along with salvage high-dose chemotherapy with melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (n = 139) or just continuous lenalidomide-dexamethasone until progression (n = 138). 

Patients in both arms received three cycles of lenalidomide-dexamethasone up front: 25 mg of lenalidomide on days 1 through 21, and 40 mg of dexamethasone on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 4-week cycles. Those in the salvage transplant arm then received high-dose chemotherapy with 200 mg/m² of melphalan followed by transplant and 10 mg of lenalidomide maintenance therapy daily, while those in the control arm continued with receiving lenalidomide-dexamethasone.

All patients had received one to three prior lines of therapy, had good performance status, and had a time-to-disease-progression of at least 12 months after frontline autologous stem cell transplant.

In the primary 2021 study, patients in the salvage transplant group did not demonstrate a survival benefit (hazard ratio [HR] for PFS, 0.87; HR for overall survival, 0.81). 

In the latest analysis, no survival benefit emerged after following patients for a median of about 8 years. Patients in the salvage transplant arm had a median PFS of 20.5 months vs 19.3 months in the continuous therapy arms (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.27; P = .9). Median overall survival was 67.1 months in the salvage transplant arm and 62.7 months in the continuous treatment arm (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.66 - 1.20; P = .44).

Time to first progression after frontline transplant was associated with a PFS benefit but did not predict an overall survival benefit, Dr. Baertsch noted. 

When evaluating outcomes from the time of salvage transplant to account for the high number of dropouts, the PFS and overall survival findings held. Patients who received salvage transplant did not experience significantly improved PFS (HR, 0.91) or overall survival (76.3 months in the salvage group vs 65.9 months in the continuous treatment arm; HR, 0.80). 

The lack of PFS and overall survival benefit occurred across all myeloma subgroups, Dr. Baertsch said. 

Overall, the results indicate that “ a repeat transplant at the time of relapse for patients who had already gotten a transplant previously was no better than continuing a two-drug regimen,” Dr. Mohyuddin said.

However, he noted, “a lot has changed for myeloma care” since this trial was initially conducted. “We now have better regimens available that do not involve a transplant. If a repeat transplant couldn’t beat a two-drug regimen, it surely cannot beat a three drug or four drug regimen.” 

Dr. Baertsch reported no disclosures.

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