Leukemia & Lymphoma最新文献

In the randomized phase III IDHENTIFY trial, the IDH2 inhibitor enasidenib (ENA) showed improvement in event-free but not overall survival compared with conventional care regimens (CCR) among patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R), IDH2-mutant AML. We constructed a partitioned survival model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of enasidenib for the treatment of older patients with R/R, and IDH2-mutant AML. In the base-case scenario, ENA exhibited an incremental effectiveness of 0.234quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to CCR, and an incremental cost of $126,800, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $540,300/QALY(95% CI: $197,800-$4,777,000/QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, CCR was favored in 99.8% of simulations. The cost of ENA would need to be decreased by 72% to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Our findings suggest that ENA is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for older patients with IDH2-mutant R/R AML under current pricing.

This phase 2 study investigated pevonedistat + azacitidine + venetoclax (n = 83) versus azacitidine + venetoclax (n = 81) in patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The study was stopped early following negative results from PANTHER, which evaluated pevonedistat in higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes/chronic myelomonocytic leukemia or low-blast AML. Outcomes were analyzed up to the datacut. For pevonedistat + azacitidine + venetoclax versus azacitidine + venetoclax, the median follow-up was 8.44 versus 7.95 months; the complete remission (CR) rate was 45% versus 49%; composite CR (CCR; CR+CR with incomplete blood count recovery) was 77% versus 72%. There were no differences in event-free survival (primary endpoint; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-1.60; p = 0.477) or overall survival (HR: 1.42; 95% CI: 0.82-2.49; p = 0.896). In exploratory analyses in IDH-mutated AML, CCR rates were higher with pevonedistat + azacitidine + venetoclax versus azacitidine + venetoclax. Safety was similar between treatment arms. Efficacy/safety with azacitidine + venetoclax was consistent with the phase 3 VIALE-A study.

Trial registration: NCT04266795.

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) is currently the only treatment modality that is capable of curing myelofibrosis (MF). Although outcomes of AHSCT have improved vastly in recent years owing to advancements in HLA typing, conditioning regimens, and supportive care, it remains a procedure with a considerable risk in MF patients due to conditioning regimen related toxicity, higher rates of graft failure, infections, and graft versus host disease (GVHD). Recent progress in the treatment and prevention of GVHD with post-transplant cyclophosphamide has also rendered transplantation from alternative donors feasible and safer, thus improving access to patients without HLA-identical donors. Accordingly, all patients with intermediate or high-risk MF today should be referred for potential transplant evaluation to consider the pros and cons of an early versus a delayed transplant strategy. Individual risk assessment in MF is best facilitated by contemporary prognostic models that incorporate both clinical and genetic risk factors. The current review highlights new information regarding risk stratification in MF, anchored by practical algorithms that facilitate patient selection for specific treatment actions, including AHSCT.

Blinatumomab, a CD19/CD3 bispecific T-cell engager; inotuzumab ozogamicin (INO), a CD22 antibody drug conjugate; and chimeric-antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell constructs are novel immune-therapeutic options for treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The use of blinatumomab has recently expanded to multiple B-ALL treatment settings. Despite the efficacy of blinatumomab, its use can be challenging in the real-world because of limited experience with its administration and management of toxicities. Optimal use and sequencing of blinatumomab is critical to improve outcomes, reduce undesired toxicities, and decrease discontinuation rates related to such toxicities. Herein, we discuss strategies to address the unique adverse effects of blinatumomab and ways to optimize its administration and integration into the treatment backbone of B-ALL. We outline our approach to combining and sequencing blinatumomab with other immunotherapies, such as INO and CD19 CAR T-cells, and provide recommendations for the management of toxicities and dose-optimization of blinatumomab therapy in clinical practice.

The mutations in SRSF2 and TET2 genes are frequently present in various myeloid neoplasms. The potential impact of SRSF2/TET2 co-mutations on patient survival is incompletely understood. We identified 412 patients with SRSF2/TET2 co-mutations from our NextGen sequencing database of around 8000 patients and reported likely the largest cohort study. Our study demonstrated the presence of these co-mutations in a spectrum of myeloid neoplasms, which show different genetic and molecular characteristics. Most of the patients with these co-mutations had normal karyotype. Interestingly, our study provided insights into the prevalence of additional mutations such as ASXL1, RUNX1, and KRAS with this co-mutation and their potential impact on patients' prognosis. We found that ASXL1, RUNX1, and KRAS can negatively impact these patients' survival with different impacts in different morphological diagnosis categories, suggesting a complex interaction between these genes. This study underscores the need for personalized approaches in the treatment of myeloid neoplasms.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare, incurable B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and over half of patients affected are older adults (≥65 years of age). New targeted treatments for MCL have emerged over the past two decades. Nonetheless, MCL-specific death rates for older adults remain elevated compared with younger adults, demonstrating the challenge of treating this population. The older adult population is at risk for overtreatment or undertreatment. Clinicians must be mindful of how to optimize the holistic care of older adults receiving treatment for MCL. Evaluating fitness through a geriatric assessment (GA) is an important step when choosing therapy. The treatment armamentarium includes both chemotherapy and non-chemotherapy options and toxicities must be considered in the context of the patient's GA and proactively managed. Herein, the treatment of MCL in older adults is reviewed and strategies for choosing treatment are offered to assist in treatment decision-making for this challenging population.

Prognostic systems predicting death risk may vary for patients with haematological malignancies needing ICU care. This study externally validated SAPS 3 using a retrospective cohort of adults with these conditions in the ICU. The score was calculated at admission using the general and South America-adjusted formulas. Mortality discrimination was assessed via AUC-ROC, and calibration by Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit and graphical analysis with a calibration belt. The analysis included 273 admissions, with 119 deaths. Discriminative capacity was low (AUC-ROC 0.56, CI 95% 0.49-0.63). There was a poor correlation between expected and observed events across all risk deciles (Hosmer-Lemeshow 10.45, p = 0.0635). Similar results were found with the South America-adjusted formula. SAPS 3 does not effectively discriminate between survivors and non-survivors, underestimating risk in low-risk groups and overestimating it in high-risk groups. Mortality risk estimation in this scenario should rely on clinical judgment.