scholarly journals Perceptions of Community Hematologists/Oncologists on Barriers to Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy for the Treatment of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2198-2198
Author(s):  
Ajeet Gajra ◽  
Richard Sweat ◽  
Yolaine Jeune-Smith ◽  
Jonathan K. Kish ◽  
Bruce A Feinberg

Introduction The ASH Annual Meeting is a venue for presentation of outcomes data from key clinical trials in hematologic malignancies and novel drug classes used to treat them. The approval of two CAR-T therapies, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tis-cel), in the treatment of large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), including diffuse LBCL (DLBCL), has ushered in a new class of drugs, i.e. cellular therapy. At ASH 2018, Nastoupil et al. presented data from a retrospective analysis of the characteristics and outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL, including DLBCL, treated with commercially available axi-cel CAR-T therapy at academic centers in the United States (Nastoupil LJ, et al. Blood. 2018;132[Suppl 1]:91). The authors found that early outcomes of real-world patients receiving axi-cel therapy were comparable to those observed in the clinical trial population, despite >40% of these patients failing to meet the clinical trial eligibility criteria. At a live meeting in February 2019, we sought the perceptions of community hematologists and oncologists (H/O) regarding their use of, referrals for and barriers to CAR-T therapy as well their perception of the value of the real-world evidence (RWE) presented. Methods A live meeting in February 2019 convened H/O with geographic representation from across the United States. The participants were shown data from selected oral and/or poster presentations from the 2018 ASH Annual Meeting and responded to questions regarding their perceptions of the data and its potential impact on current practice. Participants submitted their demographic responses via a web-based survey prior to the meeting and data impression responses via an audience response system at the live meeting. Results Among the 59 H/O who participated in this live market research program on February 22-23, 2019, 61% identified their primary specialty as hematology/oncology and 34% medical oncology. Only 27% of H/O had attended the 60th ASH Annual Meeting in December 2018. The participants were mostly community-based physicians, 50% in private community and 45% in community practices owned by a hospital or academic center. One-third have been in practice for over 20 years, one-third for 11-20 years and one-third for 10 or fewer years. This group sees an average of 20+ patients per day and reported B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma as one of the three most common hematologic malignancy they managed. 28% of H/O indicated that they have referred one patient and 24% have referred 2-5 patients for CAR-T therapy since the first approval on August 30, 2017. Of those H/O who had referred patients for CAR-T therapy, 45% indicated that none of their patients had yet received the infusion. The top two barriers to prescribing/recommending CAR-T therapy, as reported by the H/O, were the cumbersome logistics of administering therapy and following patients (52%), and the cost of the therapy (46%). Other concerns included high toxicity (24%) and lack of long-term survival data (19%), but not lack of knowledge of CAR-T therapy (2%). Furthermore, 87% of H/O agreed with the assertion that due to the limitations of randomized clinical trials, RWE is necessary to inform clinical practice. After review of the information presented on the real-world use of axi-cel, 73% of H/O indicated that this information is likely to cause them to recommend CAR-T therapy for more of their patients with DLBCL. Conclusions There is significant interest in adopting and using CAR-T therapies in LBCL amongst community H/O. This group does not perceive itself as lacking in knowledge regarding CAR-T therapy. The significant barriers of logistics and cost are potential deterrents to appropriate use. These results can inform stakeholders (manufacturers, payers, hospitals and practices) regarding the need to improve processes and develop payment models to address cost in order to facilitate access of these agents to the appropriate patients. RWE is viewed favorably by the vast majority of community H/O to inform clinical practice, due to the limitations of randomized clinical trials. Disclosures Gajra: Cardinal Health: Employment. Sweat:Cardinal Health: Employment. Jeune-Smith:Cardinal Health: Employment. Kish:Cardinal Health: Employment. Feinberg:Cardinal Health: Employment.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 301-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Thieblemont ◽  
S. Le Gouill ◽  
R. Di Blasi ◽  
G. Cartron ◽  
F. Morschhauser ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Dreger ◽  
P. Martus ◽  
U. Holtick ◽  
F. Ayuk ◽  
E. M. Wagner‐Drouet ◽  
...  

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 13-14
Author(s):  
Wajeeha Aiman ◽  
Muhammad Ashar Ali ◽  
Rimsha Ali ◽  
Farwah N. Fatima ◽  
Nayab Mirza ◽  
...  

Background: Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the US. Lenalidomide (Len), an immunomodulator, is used in the treatment of multiple hematological malignancies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Lenalidomide based regimens in Newly Diagnosed (ND) and Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Methods : A search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science. We used the following mesh terms and Emtree terms, "Lenalidomide" OR "Revlimid" AND "diffuse large B cell lymphoma" from the inception of literature till 06/20/2020. We screened 1640 articles and included 2 randomized clinical trials (N=72) and 21 single-arm clinical trials (N=860) in this meta-analysis. We excluded case reports, case series, preclinical trials, review articles, meta-analysis, observational studies, and clinical trials not providing any information about the lenalidomide efficacy or safety in DLBCL. We used the R programming language (version 4.0.2) to conduct a meta-analysis. Results : In 23 studies (N=932), Len based regimens were used in patients with age 19-92 years (range) Table 1. In 5 trials on R/R patients (N=252), Len was used as a maintenance therapy. Cumulative overall response rate (ORR) and cumulative complete response (CR) were 0.27 (95% CI 0.21; 0.33, I2=0%) (Fig1) and 0.10 (95% CI 0.07; 0.16, 8%) (Fig2), respectively. In one phase III trial, the ORR and CR were significantly improved in the Len arm vs investigator's choice drug. In 4 trials on R/R patients (N=207), Len with monoclonal antibodies (MoAb) was used. Cumulative ORR and CR were 0.40 (95% CI 0.28; 0.54, I2=71%) and 0.28 (95% CI 0.17; 0.42, I2=72%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients (N=33), Len with Gemcitabine, Rituximab, and Oxaliplatin was used. Cumulative ORR and CR were 0.61 (95% CI 0.43; 0.76, I2=0%) and 0.39 (95% CI 0.24; 0.57, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients (N=15), Len with RICE was used with ORR and CR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.47; 0.90, I2=0%) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.35; 0.81, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients(N=55), Len with Everolimus was used. ORR and CR were 0.27 (95% CI 0.17; 0.40, I2=0%) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.03; 0.18, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on R/R patients (N=19), Len with R-ESHAP was used. ORR and CR were 0.79 (95% CI 0.55; 0.92, I2=0%) and 0.47 (95% CI 0.27; 0.69, I2=0%), respectively. In a phase III trial on R/R patients (N=21), Len with Gemcitabine and Rituximab was used vs. placebo The ORR and CR were significantly improved in the Len arm vs placebo. In 4 trials on ND patients (N=158), Len with R-CHOP was used and the cumulative ORR and CR were 0.94 (95% CI 0.88; 0.97, I2=12%) and 0.81 (0.75; 0.87, I2=0%), respectively. In a trial on ND patients (N=15), Len with R-EPOCH was used with ORR and CR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.65; 0.99, I2=0%) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.59; 0.97, I2=0%), respectively. In 2 trials (N=103), Len with Ibrutinib and Rituximab was used. In R/R patients (N=45), cumulative ORR and CR were 0.38 (95% CI 0.25; 0.53, I2=0%) and 0.24 (95% CI 0.14; 0.39, I2=0%), respectively. In ND patients (N=58) has ORR and CR 0.86 (95% CI 0.75; 0.93, I2=0%), respectively. In 2 trials with a combination of ND and R/R patients (N=54), Len with Rituximab and Bendamustine was used. Cumulative ORR and CR were 0.63 (95% CI 0.49; 0.75, I2=0%) and 0.39 (95% CI 0.27; 0.52, I2=0%), respectively. The most common serious treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were infection, thromboembolism, fatigue, sepsis, respiratory, neurological, cardiac (arrhythmias), gastrointestinal, rash, seizures, and hematological side effects (Table 1). Conclusion : Based on early phase trials, Len based regimens are well tolerated and effective in the treatment of both ND and R/R DLBCL patients. Combinations of lenalidomide with Tafasitamab and R-ESHAP have shown the highest response in R/R patients and combination with R-CHOP has shown the best response in ND patients. In randomized trials, lenalidomide has shown significant improvement in the survival of DLBCL patients as compared to placebo or physician's choice drug. Additional double-blind multicenter randomized clinical trials are needed to compare the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide based regimens in DLBCL patients. Disclosures Anwer: Incyte, Seattle Genetics, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie Pharma, Astellas Pharma, Celegene, Millennium Pharmaceuticals.:Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Vodicka ◽  
K Benesova ◽  
A Janikova ◽  
V Prochazka ◽  
D Belada ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document