Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia最新文献

Introduction: High risk myeloma is heterogeneous with significant variation in risk stratifications. Real world outcomes differ from controlled clinical trials and affected by socioeconomical determinants.

Material and methods: This retrospective study was performed in a North Indian teriarty care cancer hospital. Out of 384,76(19.7%) high risk myeloma patients (median age 58 years) were analyzed.

Result and conclusion: Most common HRCA was 1 q gain 36(47.4%) followed by del17p 32(42.1%). 61/76(80.2%) received bortezomib based triplets and 15(19.74%) daratumumab based quadruplets induction, 31(40.79%) received ASCT. Median duration of follow up was 19.5 months. The 2 year OS and PFS was 73.8%, 52.6% respectively. Estimated 3 year OS was 74.7% in ASCT cohort versus 52.9% (P = .0067) without. Estimated 3-year PFS in the ASCT cohort was 72.1% versus 30.3% (P = .0026) without. Estimated 3-year OS for single hit and multi hit ultra HRMM was 67.7% and 61.9% (P = .642) whereas PFS was 58.2% and 35.2% (P = .486) respectively. In multivariate analysis ASCT correlated with better OS (HR 0.3, P = .041) and PFS (HR 0.35, P = .012). Absence of baseline renal impairment correlated with better OS (HR 4.12, P = .004) only. Early aggressive therapy with prompt ASCT translates to a better survival in high risk myeloma. Emphasis on real world clinical outcome is the need of the hour for addressing practical issues and improving global myeloma outcome.

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a rare hematologic malignancy that is characterized by dysregulation of the JAK-STAT pathway resulting in fibrosis of the bone marrow, splenomegaly, and abnormalities in peripheral blood counts including anemia, leukocytosis, and thrombocytopenia. This disease has 2 phenotypic extremes - myeloproliferative and cytopenic. Cytopenic myelofibrosis presents with pronounced cytopenia and a different landscape of genetic mutations which results in worse clinical outcomes and a poor prognosis. Patients with cytopenic MF are at high risk of developing various complications like bleeding, infections, and transfusion dependency. Historically, the only Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved therapy was ruxolitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, which improved constitutional symptoms and splenomegaly, however, exacerbated anemia and thrombocytopenia.^1,2 There were very few options for patients with anemia and thrombocytopenia, and supportive treatments for these problems lack efficacy. Fortunately, there are newer treatment options which may allow for treatment of the symptoms and splenomegaly in the setting of cytopenias and even improve cytopenias. This up-to-date review not only highlights the prevalent options in therapeutic marketplace, but also sheds light on the significant unmet need of addressing anemia and thrombocytopenia in cytopenic MF.

Background: The efficacy of elotuzumab, an anti-SLAMF7 monoclonal antibody, in treating relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) has varied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Moreover, there is limited data on its real-world application.

Patients and methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs investigating the addition of elotuzumab to backbone antimyeloma regimens. The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary efficacy outcomes included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and rates of very good partial response or better (VGPR). Key toxicities were also evaluated.

Results: Three RRMM trials (n = 915) and 5 NDMM trials (n = 1790) were included, with 50% of the 2705 patients receiving elotuzumab-containing triplets or quadruplets. In RRMM settings, elotuzumab use significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.82; P < .001; I² = 0%). This benefit was consistent among patients with high-risk cytogenetics (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90; P = .01; I² = 0%) and was particularly evident in those previously treated with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) or immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs). The RRMM cohort also demonstrated better OS, ORR, and ≥VGPR rate. However, the NDMM cohort showed no significant improvements in any efficacy outcomes. Despite an increase in severe (grade ≥3) infections, elotuzumab use did not adversely affect rates of severe cytopenias, severe cardiac disorders, or second primary malignancies.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that elotuzumab-containing regimens represent valuable therapeutic options for PI/IMiD-exposed patients with RRMM. In contrast, elotuzumab's role in frontline settings remains limited.

Hematopoietic cell transplantation requires higher doses of chemotherapy, and practices of adjusting the weight because of concerns of organ toxicity are common. This retrospective analysis of 239 adult recipients of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation for lymphoma assessed the effect of obesity on transplantation outcomes.

Background: Prior data evaluating the impact of obesity in autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (AHCT) for lymphomas have provided differing results when assessing overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Impact on survival outcomes have been described, but direct comparison of discrete toxicities is lacking.

Patients and methods: We retrospectively compared outcomes with patients divided between 3 groups: nonobese patients (n = 129), obese patients dosed on adjusted body weight (AdjBW) (n = 32), and obese patients dosed on total body weight (TBW) (n = 78).

Results: In multivariate analysis of OS with the nonobese group as the comparator, outcomes trended worse in obese patients dosed on AdjBW (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.52-2.85) but were improved in obese patients dosed on TBW (HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.85, P = .012). PFS of obese patients dosed on AdjBW vs. the nonobese group was comparable (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.63-2.24), but improved in obese patients dosed on TBW (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.89, P = .021). Notably, no differences were noted between groups in gastrointestinal, infectious, renal, or hepatic toxicities.

Conclusion: In summary, our data suggest that recipients of AHCT for lymphoma should be dosed on TBW to maximize curative outcomes with no apparent increase in toxicities.

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a chronic myeloid neoplasm characterized by myeloproliferation, bone marrow fibrosis, splenomegaly, and constitutional symptoms related to pro-inflammatory cytokine signaling. Biologically, MF is characterized by constitutive activation of JAK-STAT signaling; accordingly, JAK inhibitors have been rationally developed to treat MF. Following the initial approval of ruxolitinib in 2011, three additional agents have been approved: fedratinib, pacritinib, and momelotinib. As these therapies are noncurative, allogeneic stem cell transplantation remains a key treatment modality and patients with MF who are deemed candidates should be referred to a transplant center. This potentially curative but toxic approach is typically reserved for patients with higher-risk disease, and JAK inhibitors are recommended in the pretransplant setting. JAK inhibitors have proven effective at managing splenomegaly and constitutional symptoms and should be started early in the disease course in patients presenting with these clinical manifestations; asymptomatic patients may initially be followed with close surveillance. Drug-related myelosuppression has been a challenge with initial JAK inhibitors, particularly in patients presenting with a cytopenic phenotype. However, newer agents, namely pacritinib and momelotinib, have proven more effective in this setting and are approved for patients with significant thrombocytopenia and anemia, respectively. Resistance or disease progression is clinically challenging and may be defined by several possible events, such as increasing splenomegaly or progression to accelerated or blast phase disease. However, with multiple JAK inhibitors now approved, sequencing of these agents appears poised to improve outcomes. Additionally, novel JAK inhibitors and JAK inhibitor-based combinations are in clinical development.

Background: T-cell lymphomas are a heterogeneous group of lymphoid malignancies with poor outcomes. Frontline multiagent chemotherapy options include CHOP (prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin), brentuximab-CHP, CHOEP, and EPOCH (etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin).

Patients and methods: We report our single institution data for safety and efficacy of EPOCH in 38 patients with aggressive T-cell lymphoma including both peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL) and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL).

Results: Eighteen patients received EPOCH as first-line and 21 in the relapsed/refractory (R/R) setting. In 36 evaluable patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 77% (95% CI, 61%-89%) with 19 (53%) patients achieving complete response (CR) (95% CI, 36%-69%). The ORR in first line and R/R settings were 80% (95% CI, 46%-94%) and 75% (95% CI, 52%-90%), respectively. Response rate was similar in African American versus Caucasian patients but was higher in CD30 negative versus positive patients. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events included cytopenias.

Conclusions: Overall, EPOCH was well tolerated with high response rates in first line and R/R setting.

Background: In the last decade, TKIs improved the overall survival (OS) of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients who achieved a deep and sustained molecular response (DMR, defined as stable MR4 and MR4.5). Those patients may attempt therapy discontinuation. In our analysis, we report the differences in eligibility criteria due to time of response and different TKI used as frontline treatment analyzed in a large cohort of CP-CML patients.

Methods: Data were exported by LabNet CML, a network founded by GIMEMA in 2014. The network standardized and harmonized the molecular methodology among 51 laboratories distributed all over Italy for the diagnosis and molecular residual disease (MRD) monitoring.

Results: Out of 1777 patients analyzed, 774 had all evaluable timepoints (3, 6, and 12 months). At 3 months, 40 patients obtained ≥MR4: of them 14 (3.6%) with imatinib, 8 (5.8%) with dasatinib, and 18 (7.4%) with nilotinib (P = .093); at 6 months, 146 patients were in MR4: 42 (11%) with imatinib, 38 (28%) with dasatinib, and 66 (27%) with nilotinib (P < .001). At 12 months, 231 patients achieved a DMR: 85 (22%) with imatinib, 55 (40%) with dasatinib and 91 (38%) with nilotinib (P < .001). Achieving at least ≥MR2 at 3 months, was predictive of a DMR at any timepoint of observation: with imatinib 67% versus 30% of patients with 2 years was significant for patients who at 3 months had ≥MR2 (18% vs. 9.9% of pts with

Conclusion: In conclusion, reaching ≥MR2 and a MR3 at 3 months it seems predictive of a DMR at any time point. Considering the prerequisite for a discontinuation with a sustained DMR only a minority of patients can be eligible for the discontinuation, regardless the frontline treatment received.

Background: Large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) is the most common form of lymphoma. Polatuzumab vedotin (polatuzumab) is an effective therapy for patients diagnosed with LBCL; however, only limited information regarding pathologic features detected by clinical laboratory assays is available to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from polatuzumab based therapies.

Patients and methods: We collected data from real world patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL whose tumors underwent next generation sequencing and were treated with polatuzumab based therapy at a single large academic cancer center. Tumor and patient characteristics were analyzed to look for factors that predict response to polatuzumab based therapies.

Results: We identified high grade B cell lymphoma (HGBL) -NOS or MYC/BCL2 histology and presence of MYC rearrangement as factors that predict inferior response to polatuzumab based therapy. Patients with germinal center B cell of origin (GCB COO) LBCL without these factors had a high response rate (73%) to polatuzumab based therapy.

Conclusion: In a single center real world retrospective analysis of R/R LBCL patients with available genomic data, polatuzumab based therapy may be less effective in patients with HGBL-NOS or MYC/BCL2 histology and MYC rearrangements, but not in patients with GCB COO LBCL without these features. Routine performance of more comprehensive pathologic analysis of tumors may inform the use of polatuzumab based therapy in patients with LBCL.