Abstract
Background: MRD testing in BCP-ALL is critical for appropriate patient management, but little is known regarding sample acquisition and testing heterogeneity across clinical practice settings. These factors may impact the quality and reliability of MRD assessment.
Methods: Thirty-minute online surveys were conducted in May 2021 with hematologists/oncologists (HEME/ONCs) in the United States in both academic (acad) and community (comm) settings. Respondents were licensed physicians board certified in oncology and/or hematology who treated ≥2 BCP-ALL patients/year or ≥10 patients in the past 5 years, with over 25% of time spent in the clinical setting; pediatric HEME/ONCs were excluded. Survey enrollment is ongoing, with interim results presented here; a related survey for pathologists (PATHs) is underway.
Results: HEME/ONC respondents (acad n=40, comm n=57, from 29 states) had been practicing as specialists for a median of between 11-15 years (choices were ranges, eg 6-10, 11-15, min-max was 1-34 years), and typically spent over 75% of their time in the clinic; 94% of respondents had ≥5 BCP-ALL patients/year and 92% ordered MRD tests for ≥5 patients/year. Typical timepoints for MRD testing included the end of induction/suspected complete remission, the end of consolidation, and at suspected disease progression; testing after the end of consolidation was infrequent in both groups (Table). Testing for MRD at the end of consolidation was notably more frequent in the academic setting. In both settings, the HEME/ONC ordering the MRD test generally also performed the bone marrow collection procedure (acad: 78%, comm: 56%). Resources consulted on bone marrow collection best practices included UpToDate (21%), ASH and ASCO (13%), NCCN guidelines (13%), and hematology/oncology journals. About half of practices had defined institutional protocols for bone marrow collection (acad: 55%, comm: 47%), nearly all of which were developed internally. The amount of bone marrow sample collected showed high variability, ranging from 1-10 draws (median=3) and 1-30 mL sample per draw (median=5 mL). While 49% of HEME/ONCs performed <5 draws and extracted ≤6 mL per draw, 22% collected 10 mL/draw, and 10% collected 20 mL/draw; the remaining 18% reported >5 draws and/or >6 mL per draw. In both settings, the first pull was identified and labeled in 35% of procedures; in those cases, the first-pull samples were used primarily for MRD testing in 60% of cases as recommended by NCCN guidelines (vs for morphology assessment and cytogenetic studies). HEME/ONCs typically relied on the expertise of pathologists to choose MRD testing methodology.Survey results indicate that external labs (both national clinical reference labs and commercial labs) were most commonly used for MRD assessments (63%); comm HEME/ONCs were more likely to use external reference labs and acad HEME/ONCs were more likely to use in-house labs. When asked to estimate the frequency with which different MRD methods were used, mean responses were 54% flow cytometry and 40% next-generation sequencing. While all HEME/ONCs indicated that MRD results were presented clearly in lab reports, there was a desire to include more guideline information about MRD interpretation and BCP-ALL treatment.
Conclusion: Interim results identified broad heterogeneity in clinical practices affecting sample collection for MRD assessment in Ph- BCP-ALL in the US, indicating several opportunities for harmonization of routine MRD assessment in BCP-ALL. These opportunities include optimization of bone marrow sample collection techniques (volume/draw and identification/use of first pull for MRD), timing/frequency of specimen collection, serial MRD surveillance after consolidation, MRD method chosen, and standardizing reports to include guideline information. There were gaps in awareness of FDA-approved methods of MRD testing for BCP-ALL. Initiatives supporting provider education and harmonization of best practices from professional guideline committees/organizations are needed to optimize outcomes of BCP-ALL patients.
Figure 1 Figure 1.
Disclosures
Hidalgo-Lopez: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Roboz: Janssen: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; MEI Pharma - IDMC Chair: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Mesoblast: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Jasper Therapeutics: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; Glaxo SmithKline: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy. Wood: Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Juno, Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Other: Laboratory Services Agreement. Borowitz: Amgen, Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria. Jabbour: Amgen, AbbVie, Spectrum, BMS, Takeda, Pfizer, Adaptive, Genentech: Research Funding. Velasco: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Elkhouly: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Adedokun: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Zaman: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Iskander: Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Logan: Amgen, Pfizer, AbbVie: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, Astellas, Jazz, Kite, Kadmon, Autolus, Amphivena: Research Funding.
Disparities in Geographic Accessibility of National Cancer Institute Cancer Centers in the United States
