scholarly journals Real-World Testing Patterns for Risk Assessment and Implications on the Adoption of Novel Therapeutics in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: IGHV Mutation Status, FISH Cytogenetic, and Immunophenotyping

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4078-4078
Author(s):  
Asher Chanan-Khan ◽  
Keri Yang ◽  
Tom Liu ◽  
Todd Zimmerman ◽  
Boxiong Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Mutation Status ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Introduction: Prognostic testing, including immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region gene (IgHV) mutation status, cytogenetic abnormalities by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and immunophenotyping has been recommended in all newly diagnosed patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) prior to treatment initiation, and even in previously treated patients in some settings. Recent data have shown that disease with high-risk genetic features is better managed with novel agents than traditional chemoimmunotherapy. As such, the need for testing has become more relevant for disease management. However, there is limited recent data on real-world patterns of testing for risk factor assessment and in-turn, patterns of evidence-based treatment selection. This study aimed to examine: (1) the frequency and results of testing, (2) timing of testing by line of therapy, and (3) factors associated with the receipt of testing. Methods: De-identified data from the Flatiron Health EHR-derived database was used to identify patients who were ≥18 years old with newly-diagnosed CLL/SLL, who had ≥6-month continuous enrollment, and no prior treatment from January 2014 to May 2021. Testing evaluated included IgHV mutation status, FISH cytogenetic (11q deletion [del(11q)], 13q deletion [del(13q)], 17p deletion [del(17p)], Trisomy 12 [+12]) and other biomarkers (including CD38 and ZAP-70) by immunophenotyping. Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the frequency and results in the overall population, and compared by patient characteristics and across sociodemographic groups. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to examine factors associated with the likelihood of receiving testing. Statistical significance was determined as a p-value of <0.05. Results: A total of 3,037 CLL patients were included (median age=73, 62.3% male, 74.6% white). The majority of patients (92%) received treatment in community practices, with 54.1% commercially-insured. We observed over half of CLL patients did not receive risk factor testing (Figure 1): IgHV mutation analyses (76.2%, n=2,315), FISH (61.5%, n=1,868) and immunophenotyping (72.1%, n=2,190). Of those who had testing, the majority (99%) had it done once prior to starting first-line therapy. Significant differences in the receipt of testing were observed between different age, gender, race/ethnicity, and regional subgroups (Table 1). Among patients who received testing, the presence of high-risk biomarkers was as follows: unmutated IgHV (56.1%), del(17p) present (14.4%), del(11q) present (16.9%), and CD38 present (30.8%). Compared to patients <65 years, testing results in elderly patients ≥65 years showed a lower presence of unmutated IgHV (53.8%) and del(11q) (15.7%) while higher del(17p) (14.7%) and +12 (28.1%). No significant disparity was observed in white vs. non-white patients except for a lower incidence of mutated IgHV and del(13q) presence. Compared to tested men, tested women had a lower presence of unmutated IgHV (53.9%), del(11q) (11.4%) and CD38+ (25.8%) while higher del(17p) (18.2%). We then investigated the impact of risk testing on therapy selection, and noted that patients with del(17p) had a higher likelihood than those who tested negative (73.6% vs. 48.4%) of being treated with novel agents (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or venetoclax). In contrast, 26.4% of those who tested del(17p) present and 39.8% among those who did not get tested received chemotherapy. Multivariable regression showed that patients who were older (≥65 years), female or those living in the west of U.S. were significantly less likely to receive testing. Conclusions: The NCCN guidelines recommend novel agents for patients with high-risk CLL/SLL. Thus, all patients are advised to complete risk-factor testing for both prognostication and selection of optimal, evidence-based therapy. Our real-world data highlights not only a significant gap in testing, but that this suboptimal testing is more common in vulnerable populations. We observed that despite identification of del(17), a quarter of CLL patients failed to receive novel agents in the frontline setting. Our analysis identified an unmet need for further education and refinement of clinical practice. This is necessary to achieve the best clinical outcome in CLL patients through robust risk-assessment testing and optimal therapeutic triaging. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage: Research Funding; Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria. Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Zimmerman: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Ailawadhi: Ascentage: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy.

Comparison Of Sequential Vs Alternating Administration Of Bortezomib, Melphalan and Prednisone (VMP) and Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone (Rd) In Elderly Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Patients: GEM2010MAS65 Trial

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 403-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria-Victoria Mateos ◽  
Joaquín Martínez-López ◽  
Miguel T. Hernandez ◽  
Rafael Martinez ◽  
Laura Rosiñol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Risk Groups ◽  
Hematologic Toxicity ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Sequential Scheme ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background VMP and Rd are two of the most efficient and widely accepted regimens in the treatment of elderly newly diagnosed MM patients. In order to further improve the outcome of elderly patients, one possibility would be to use regimens including all these drugs simultaneously, but this may result into high toxicity. Alternatively, the use of these regimens (VMP and Rd) in a sequential or alternating scheme could improve the treatment of elderly patients. We hypothesized the alternating scheme would minimize the emergence of resistant clones, and would reduce the cumulative toxicity. In order to test this hypothesis we decided to compare VMP and RD in a sequential vs an alternating scheme. Patients and methods 241 patients were randomized to receive a sequential scheme consisting on 9 cycles of VMP followed by 9 cycles of Rd or the same regimens in an alternating approach (one cycle of VMP alternating with one Rd (half of the patients started by VMP and half by Rd) up to 18 cycles). VMP included the iv administration of bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly for 1 six-weeks cycle, followed by once weekly for 8 four-weeks cycles in combination with oral melphalan 9 mg/m2 and prednisone 60 mg/m2 once daily on days 1–4 of each cycle. Rd treatment consisted on lenalidomide 25 mg daily on days 1-21 plus dexamethasone 40 mg weekly. Results 121 patients were allocated to receive the sequential scheme and 120 the alternating regimen. Both arms were well balanced according to the baseline characteristics. 52% patients in the sequential arm and 55% in the alternating and had high risk cytogenetic abnormalities (t(4;14), t(14;16), del17p or 1q gains). After 9 cycles of treatment, in the sequential arm, 35 out of 66 (54%) achieved at least VGPR vs 51 out of 65 patients (78%) in the alternating arm (p=0.002), including sCR/CR rate of 28% vs 38% in the sequential and alternating arms, respectively (p=NS). Seven patients in each arm achieved immunophenotypic CR. Moreover, while four patients progressed in the sequential arm under treatment with VMP, no patients in the alternating scheme developed disease progression during the first 9 cycles, After a median follow up of 12 months, there was a trend for shorter TTP in the sequential as compared with the alternating scheme (18 m-TTP of 83% vs 89% (p=NS)). In terms of OS, 83% of patients in the sequential arm were alive at 18 m versus 93% in the alternating (p=NS). Patients who achieved sCR/CR had a significantly longer 18 m-TTP as compared with patients who didn’t achieve it in both sequential (100% vs 71%; p=0.006) and alternating arms (100% vs 79%; p=0.006) and this translated into a significant benefit in OS. No differences were observed in overall response rates and CR rates in standard and high risk patients. The 18 m-TTP was similar in standard and high risk groups in both sequential (86% vs 81%) and alternating arms (84% vs 94%), noting that 94% of patients receiving the alternating scheme were progression-free at 18 months. Regarding hematologic toxicity, the frequency of G3-4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the sequential than in the alternating arm (16% and 23%) and the same trend was observed for G3-4 thrombocytopenia (16% vs 20%). Concerning non-hematologic toxicity, 5% and 4% of the patients in the sequential and alternating arms developed G3-4 infections, respectively; the rate of G3-4 skin rash was 4% in the sequential and 3% in the alternating arm; 4% of patients in the sequential arm developed G3-4 peripheral neuropathy and 3% in the sequential arm. The rate of grade 3-4 thrombotic events was 2% in both arms. Nevertheless, the detailed evaluation of the toxicity will be done at the completion of the trial when all patients will have received the same amount of drugs in either a sequential or an alternating scheme (at the present time, 42 patients in the sequential arm were not yet at risk for the development of lenalidomide-related side effects). Conclusions The administration of melphalan, bortezomib, lenalidomide and steroids in elderly MM patients in a sequential or alternating scheme is feasible. Although longer follow-up is necessary, the alternating scheme may be superior in terms of response rate and outcome, as result of the early exposure of the plasma cell to different agents. Toxicity profile is acceptable. Aparently both schemes of therapy seems to overcome the poor prognosis of high risk cytogenetic. Disclosures: Mateos: Janssen, Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is not approved for newly diagnosed MM patients. Ocio:Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. San Miguel:Janssen, Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.

A Phase III Study of Enoxaparin Vs Aspirin as Thromboprophylaxis for Newly Diagnosed Myeloma Patients Treated with Lenalidomide-Based Regimen.

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1092-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Cavallo ◽  
Francesco Di Raimondo ◽  
Izhar Harda ◽  
Barbara Lupo ◽  
Alessandra Romano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Abstract 1092 Background: Newly diagnosed myeloma (MM) patients who receive thalidomide-based regimens have a high risk of thromboembolic events. Preliminary studies on MM patients receiving a combination of lenalidomide (R) and dexamethasone have shown an increased incidence of thrombosis as well, with a calculated odds ratio of about 3.5 of developing thrombosis. Aims: In a prospective, multicenter phase III trial (RV-MM-PI-209) newly diagnosed patients were treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) induction and subsequently randomized to receive consolidation with lenalidomide + melphalan + prednisone (MPR) or high dose melphalan (MEL200). In this sub-study we evaluated the safety and the efficacy of low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or low-dose aspirin (ASA) as anticoagulant prophylaxis during Rd induction and MPR consolidation. End-points were incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), acute cardiovascular events, sudden death, major and minor bleeding. Methods: 402 newly diagnosed MM patients were enrolled in the randomized trial RV-MM-PI-209. Treatment schedule included four 28 day cycles of lenalidomide (25 mg days 1–21) and low-dose dexamethasone (40 mg days 1,8,15,22) (Rd) as induction. As consolidation, patients were randomized to receive six 28-day cycles of melphalan (0.18 mg/kg days 1–4), prednisone (2 mg/kg days 1–4) and lenalidomide (10 mg days 1–21) (MPR, N=202) or tandem melphalan 200 mg/m2 with stem-cell support (MEL200, N=200). All eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive LMWH (Enoxaparin 40 mg/d, N=166) or ASA (Aspirin 100 mg/d, N=176) for the duration of the induction therapy and for consolidation therapy in the MPR group; 60 patients were excluded from this sub-study because of indication for anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy or high-risk of bleeding. Results: Patient characteristics and distribution of major risk factors were similar in the two groups. At the time of the present analysis 381 and 130 patients are evaluable during Rd induction and consolidation respectively. During the induction phase, the overall incidence of any grade 3–4 thrombotic events was 1% in the LMWH group, 2,4% in the ASA group (p=.45). VTE, mostly of the lower limbs were equally distributed in the two groups (1%; p not significant), while pulmonary embolism was observed only in the ASA group (2%; p not significant). Median time to onset of thrombotic events for patients who received LMWH or ASA were 2.1 and 1 months, respectively. No acute cardiovascular events were observed and only minor bleeding was detected in the LMWH group (1%). During consolidation no thrombotic events were observed in the MPR group, only one central venous catheter thrombosis was observed in the MEL200 group. Conclusion: The overall incidence of thrombotic events was less than 5% in all groups and confirmed the safety of low dose dexamethasone in association with Lenalidomide. No significant benefit was seen with LMWH over ASA in this patient population. LMWH and ASA are likely to be effective thromboprophylactic regimens in lenalidomide treated patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The analysis will be updated for the meeting. Disclosures: Cavallo: CELGENE: Honoraria. Guglielmelli:CELGENE: Honoraria; JANSSEN-CILAG: Honoraria. Boccadoro:CELGENE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; JANSSEN-CILAG: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Palumbo:CELGENE: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JANSSEN-CILAG: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Clinically Ascertained Monoclonal B-Cell Lymphocytosis: Risk of Progression to Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Requiring Therapy and Outcomes

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3228-3228
Author(s):  
Sameer A. Parikh ◽  
Kari G Chaffee ◽  
Timothy G. Call ◽  
Jose F. Leis ◽  
Wei Ding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
General Population ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Cell Count ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Mutation Status ◽  
Risk Of Progression ◽  
Age And Sex

Abstract Background: Individuals with clinically ascertained monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (c-MBL) having the phenotype of the chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have a 1-4% per year risk of progression to CLL requiring therapy. The risk factors for progression and the outcomes of individuals with c-MBL are not well defined. Methods: Using the Mayo Clinic CLL Database, we identified individuals with c-MBL (absolute B-cell count of <5x109/L, in the absence of symptoms, organomegaly, splenomegaly and cytopenias) who were seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN between 01/1995 - 5/2016. Patients in whom an absolute B-cell count was not available were included in the analysis if the absolute lymphocyte count was <5x109/L. Baseline clinical characteristics and prognostic test results (including IGHV mutation status, genetic abnormalities detected by FISH, and expression of ZAP-70, CD38 and CD49d) were recorded. Time to first therapy (TFT) was analyzed using cumulative incidence methods accounting for competing risk of death. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify factors that predicted TFT. Because of missing data for some prognostic parameters, multiple models were run, introducing one novel prognostic factor at a time to the base model (which consisted of age and sex). Overall survival (OS) of these individuals was compared to age- and sex-matched population of the state of Minnesota. Results: Eight hundred and fifty-one individuals with c-MBL were identified and included in this analysis. Median age was 69 years (range, 38-95 years), and 527 (62%) were males. The median absolute B-cell count at the time of diagnosis was 2.6 x 109/L (range, 0.1-5.0 x 109/L). The median serum beta-2 microglobulin (β2M) was 2.2 mg/dL (range, 1.0 - 21.5 mg/dL). One hundred and nine (30%) individuals had unmutated IGHV genes, and 38 (7%) had high-risk FISH (defined as either del17p13 or del11q23). The CD38 (≥30%), ZAP-70 (≥20%), and CD49d (≥30%) status was positive in 19%, 23% and 34% individuals, respectively. After a median follow-up of 6.8 years, 99 individuals required therapy for progressive disease (at a rate of 2.1% per year, Figure 1). On multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with a higher risk of progression to CLL requiring therapy: a) unmutated IGHV status (hazard ratio [HR]:3.8, 95%CI 2.1 - 7.0, p<0.0001); b) positive CD49d status (HR: 3.1, 95%CI 1.6 - 5.9, p=0.0006); and c) positive CD38 status (HR: 2.8, 95% CI 1.7 - 4.8, p<0.0001). Although the HR for high-risk FISH was 2.0 (95% CI 0.9 - 4.4), it was not significantly associated with TFT (p=0.11), likely due to small sample size. Age, sex, serum β2M, and ZAP-70 expression were not predictive of TFT. Among these individuals with B-cell counts <5x109/L, further stratification of the absolute B-cell count at diagnosis showed no association with TFT (Figure 2). The median OS of individuals with c-MBL was 11.8 years. Although the OS among individuals with c-MBL and the age- and sex-matched general population of Minnesota appeared similar for the first 10 years of follow-up, OS was significantly shorter in the c-MBL group during the full follow-up interval (p=0.004, Figure 3). Conclusion: In this large cohort of individuals with clinically ascertained MBL, the risk of progression to CLL requiring therapy was 2.1% per year. Biological characteristics of the B-cell clone including IGHV mutation status, and CD49d and CD38 status predicted time to first CLL therapy. On extended follow-up, the OS of individuals with c-MBL was significantly shorter relative to age- and sex-matched general population. These findings have important implications for counselling individuals with clinically ascertained MBL. Disclosures Parikh: Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ding:Merck: Research Funding. Kenderian:Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Shanafelt:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithkKine: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; Hospira: Research Funding.

Analysis of 179 Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (MM) Treated with Novel Agents Followed by Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT): a Retrospective Study

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 1343-1343
Author(s):  
Joyce Habib ◽  
Neil Dunavin ◽  
Gary Phillips ◽  
Patrick Elder ◽  
Meaghan Tranovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Genetic Profile ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Free Survival

Abstract Abstract 1343 Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common hematological malignancy in the United States with an estimated 20,580 new cases in 2009. Over the past decade, the introduction of novel agents (thalidomide, lenalidomide and bortezomib) have played a pivotal role in improving response rates, duration of response, overall survival (OS) and quality of life. In this study we describe a single center experience with novel agents used for induction followed by high dose chemotherapy (HDT) and first autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) in patients with MM. Method: A retrospective review of the medical records of 179 newly diagnosed patients with MM seen between October 2006 and December 2009 at The Ohio State University was performed. All patients received novel therapy containing thalidomide, bortezomib or lenalidomide as part of an induction regimen followed by ASCT. All patients received melphalan 140mg/m2 or 200mg/m2 as preparative regimen. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to plot progression free survival and overall survival. Results: Of the 181 patients seen, 2 were excluded because they did not receive a novel agent as part of induction treatment. Of the 179 patients analyzed, median age was 56.8 years (29-80) with 30% of patients older than 60 years. African American represented 19%. Fifty-nine percent were male, 80% had Durie-Salmon (DS) stage III while 25%, 28%, 18% represented International prognostic score (IPS) stage I, II, and III respectively with 27% unknown. Median comorbidity index score was 2 (2-7) and median Karnofsky performance score (KPS) was 90% (70-100). Thirty percent had high risk genetic profile, and 73% received one line of treatment before ASCT. The median time from diagnosis to ASCT was 8.33 months (4-58). The overall response rate (ORR) prior to transplant was 84% (9% complete (CR), 29% very good partial (VGPR), and 46% partial (PR)). The ORR post ASCT was 89% (CR 45%, VGPR 22%, PR 21%). Non relapse mortality was 1% and 3% at 100 days and 1 year respectively. At a median follow up of 31 months (7-90), 69 patients (38%) had relapsed. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 29 months with 1 and 3 years PFS of 79.3% and 61.5% respectively (Fig. 1). The OS was not reached. One and 3 years OS were 93% and 88% respectively (Fig. 1). Univariate analysis showed that time to transplant > 12 months was associated with poor outcome and decreased overall survival (HR 3.30, p = 0.008). High risk genetic profile was also found to be associated with decreased overall survival although this was not statistically significant (HR 2.31, p = 0.070). Multivariate analysis found that only time to transplant > 12 months was an independent predictor of decreased OS. Significant predictors for disease progression were high risk genetic profile and time to transplant > 12 months in patients receiving 2 or more treatments before ASCT. Conclusion: Induction with novel agents followed by HDT and ASCT improves CR rate, in our case from 9% to 45%. Median PFS (29 months) was comparable to other published data. OS was not been reached after a median follow up of 31 months. Predictors of progression include high risk genetic profile and time to transplant > 12 months. The only significant predictor for survival was time to transplant. Our study suggests that an early transplant may improve OS and PFS. An extended analysis will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures: Phillips: NCI/NIH: Research Funding; NCCM Grant: Research Funding; ARRA RC2 Grant: Research Funding. Byrd:Genzyme Corporation: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Front-Line Treatment with Obinutuzumab ± Chlorambucil for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Real-World Clinical Practice: Results of a Multinational, Multicenter Study By Eric and Icllsg

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1766-1766
Author(s):  
Yair Herishanu ◽  
Adir Shaulov ◽  
Riva Fineman ◽  
Sandra Bašić-Kinda ◽  
Ariel Aviv ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Real World Setting ◽  
High Risk Disease ◽  
Frontline Treatment

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) occurs in older individuals with a median age at diagnosis of 72 years. In recent years, there has been considerable progress in the frontline therapy of elderly/physically unfit patients with CLL. The German CLL11 trial showed that addition of obinutuzumab to chlorambucil (G-Clb) prolongs progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to chlorambucil alone or in combination with rituximab. More recently, obinutuzumab together with ibrutinib or venetoclax were shown to be superior to G-Clb with regard to PFS, but there was no advantage in terms of OS. In this retrospective, multinational and multicenter co-operative study the European Research Initiative on CLL (ERIC) and the Israeli CLL Study Group (ICLLSG) evaluated the efficacy of frontline treatment with G-Clb in patients with CLL, in a "real-world" setting. Our analysis excluded CLL patients with documented del(17p) or TP53 mutations since they are no longer treated with chemotherapy. Results: A total of 437 treatment-naïve patients with CLL from 51 medical centers located in 13 countries were included. The median age of this patient population was 75.9 years; 59.7% were men, median CIRS total score was 8 and estimated creatinine clearance 61.1 mL/min. Seventy four patients had Binet stage A (17.2%), 167 (38.8%) stage B and 190 (44.1%) stage C. Results of FISH and IGHV mutational status were available for 332 and 115 patients, respectively. High-risk cytogenetics, del(11q) was documented in 18.7% patients and IGHV-unmutated gene in 64.4%. The vast majority of patients were treated with G-Clb (N=408) and the rest with obinutuzumab monotherapy (G-monotherapy, N=29). The clinical overall response was 86.5%, including clinical complete and partial responses in 41.6% and 45.8% of cases, respectively. The median observation time was 14.1 months (m) and the median PFS of the entire cohort was 27.6m (95% CI, 24.2-31.0). The PFS for G-Clb was significantly better than G-monotherapy (P=0.001; HR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.22-0.67), being the 2-year PFS estimates 61.8% and 52.8%, respectively. The median PFS was significantly shorter for patients with del(11q) (19.2m) compared to those with normal FISH (not reached, P<0.001), del(13q) (29.9m, P<0.001) and trisomy12 (not reached, P=0.027). Patients with IGHV-unmutated had a trend for shorter PFS compared to those with IGHV-mutated gene (median PFS 25.3m vs. not reached, respectively. p=0.06). In a multivariate analysis, older age, high risk-disease, lymph nodes >5cm, G-monotherapy, reduced cumulative dose of obinutuzumab and status less than CR, were independently associated with shorter PFS. Seventy patients (16%) received a second-line treatment. The median OS for the entire cohort has not been reached yet and 2-year OS estimate is 88%. In conclusion, in a "real-world" setting, frontline treatment with G-Clb achieves PFS comparable to that reported in clinical trials. Inferior outcomes were observed in patients with high-risk disease [del(11q) and/or IGHV-unmutated] and those treated with G-monotherapy. Thus, even today in the era of novel drugs, G-Clb can be considered a legitimate frontline treatment in unfit CLL patients with low-risk disease [non-del(11q) and IGHV-mutated]. Disclosures Herishanu: Roche: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Simkovic:Roche: Honoraria; University Hospital Hradec Kralove: Employment; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mauro:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Shire: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Jannsen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding. Coscia:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Scarfo:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria. Tedeschi:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen spa: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SUNESIS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Honoraria. Gimeno Vázquez:JANSSEN: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Speakers Bureau. Assouline:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Levato:Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Rigolin:Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Speakers Bureau. Loscertales:Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Ghia:Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Therapy Related MDS/AML In Multiple Myeloma Patients In The Era Of Novel Agents

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 3117-3117
Author(s):  
Morie A Gertz ◽  
Suzanne R Hayman ◽  
David Dingli ◽  
Angela Dispenzieri ◽  
Prashant Kapoor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Stem Cell Transplant ◽  
The United States ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Cell Transplant ◽  
Trisomy 8 ◽  
To Receive

Introduction With the introduction of novel agents, survival in multiple myeloma has successively increased in the past decade. This improved survival increases the risk for late complications. Patients continue to receive melphalan therapy as a standard induction for those over the age of 65. Lenalidomide is considered a standard component of induction therapy in the United States for patients who are transplant candidates. Stem cell transplantation remains the standard of care for patients eligible to receive it. As a consequence of exposure to lenalidomide, stem cell transplant, and melphalan, the risk of late myelodysplasia and acute leukemia remains significant. We reviewed the Mayo Clinic experience with therapy-induced myelodysplasia beginning with the advent of novel agents. Patients and Methods All patients that carry the diagnosis of multiple myeloma between January 1, 2000, and September 1, 2011, were included. Patients with a synchronous diagnosis of a myeloproliferative or a myelodysplastic disorder or those who developed the myelodysplastic disorder within 15 months of first chemotherapy exposure were excluded. The date of diagnosis for the purpose of this abstract was based on first exposure to chemotherapy and not first detection of a monoclonal protein or smoldering multiple myeloma. All patients had to have morphologic verification in the bone marrow of dysplastic change consistent with therapy-related myelodysplasia. Results Of 3111 patients who had a myeloma diagnosis and first treatment after January 1, 2000, through September 1, 2011, 22 patients were identified to fulfill the criteria of myelodysplasia. There were 13 men and 9 women with a median age of 67 (46 to 82). At the time of this report, 17 have died. Prior to the development of myelodysplasia, exposure to an alkylating agent, lenalidomide, or an auto stem cell transplant was seen in 13, 15, and 10, respectively. Only one patient had been exposed to lenalidomide alone. Eighteen patients were classified as myelodysplasia. Four had acute non-lymphocytic leukemia. Metaphase cytogenetics was available in 19 and only one was normal. Twelve were hypodiploid. Trisomy 8 or abnormalities of chromosome 5 and 7 were present in 13. Seven patients received a hypomethylating agent with no clear evidence of response in any. Four patients had an allotransplant to manage the MDS/AML and only one survives 487 days after a matched-related donor allogeneic transplant. The median time from initial therapy of multiple myeloma to recognition of MDS or AML was 50.9 months (range: 15.2-146.5 months) fig 1. The median overall survival of the 22 patients is 6.5 months. Fig 2 Six of the 22 had active myeloma at the diagnosis of MDS/AML. Conclusion Myelodysplasia during the era of novel agents is a devastating complication of therapy with a very short survival and low response rate. As a time-dependent complication, the overall risk cannot be accurately estimated but has occurred in <1% of our patient population to date. Hypomethylating agents were ineffective in the seven that received it. One of four allotransplant patients remains alive. Ongoing surveillance for MDS/AML in this population is warranted and more effective therapies are needed. Disclosures: Kumar: Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Vorinostat Does Not Improve Outcome in Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia and High Risk Myelodysplasia Treated with Azacitidine: Results of the UK Trials Acceleration Programme Ravva Trial

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 1065-1065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Craddock ◽  
Aimee E Houlton ◽  
Paul Ferguson ◽  
Manoj Raghavan ◽  
Sonia Fox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Blood Count ◽  
White Blood Count ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Intensive Chemotherapy ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Major Response ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Acute Myeloid

Abstract Introduction: Azacitidine (AZA) represents a significant advance in the treatment of adults with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) (Dombret et al Blood 2016 126:291-9) and myelodysplasia (MDS) (Fenaux et al Lancet Oncol 2009) 10:223-32) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. However complete response (CR) rates remain modest and disease progression is almost inevitable. Consequently, additional agents which improve the clinical activity of AZA and other hypomethylating agents are urgently required. Pre-clinical and Phase II studies have identified the potential of co-administration of histone deacteylase inhibitors, notably vorinostat (VOR), with AZA as a strategy to improve its clinical activity. We have therefore compared outcomes after AZA monotherapy or combined AZA and VOR in a prospective randomized trial in adults with high risk AML and MDS. Patients and Methods: 259adults with AML or high risk MDS deemed ineligible for intensive chemotherapy were randomized to receive either AZA (75 mg/m2) x 7 days every 28 days or AZA in combination with VOR 300 mg bd days 3-9 po for a minimum of 6 cycles. Patients were assessed for response, using modified Cheson criteria, after 3 and 6 cycles of therapy. Patients who achieved a major clinical response (CR, CRi or PR) were eligible to receive continued treatment until loss of response, toxicity or death. Major response after 6 cycles and overall survival (OS) were co-primary endpoints. 219 patients had AML (newly diagnosed n= 108) and 44 had MDS (newly diagnosed n= 30). Results: Co-administration of VOR did not increase either the major response rate at 6 months compared with AZA monotherapy (33% AZA v 37% AZA+VOR, OR (95% CI)=1.2 (0.7,2.0), p=0.55) or improve OS (1 year OS AZA 43% versus AZA/VOR 44%, HR (95% CI)=1.06 (0.8, 1.4), p=0.68). No benefit of addition of VOR was observed in any patient subgroup. In multivariate analysis of the study population, a low presentation white blood count (p=0.029) and a diagnosis of MDS vs AML (p=0.0048) was associated with significantly improved survival, whilst disease status (CR v advanced disease) (p=0.023) and low presentation white blood count (p=0.034) significantly improved major response rates. Presentation karyotype was not predictive of either survival or response. Both adverse events (AE) and serious adverse events (SAE) were balanced between treatment arms with 64 and 89 patients in the AZA arm experiencing AE and SAEs respectively versus 75 and 97 in the combination arm respectively. Discussion: To our knowledge this is the largest randomized study of epigenetic therapy in AML and MDS. We conclude that the addition ofVOR to AZA therapy does not increase either major response rates or overall survival in patients with AML and high risk MDS. Alternative therapeutic strategies with the potential to increase response to AZA are required in this patient population. Disclosures Ferguson: Celgene: Consultancy. Raghavan:Celgene: Consultancy. Quek:Celgene: Research Funding. Cavenagh:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. McMullin:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Pillai:Celgene: Honoraria. Vyas:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Clinical Practice Utilization and Outcomes with Rasburicase Vs Allopurinol for Patients at High Risk of Tumor Lysis Syndrome

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 2203-2203
Author(s):  
Janna Radtchenko ◽  
Daniel Lyons ◽  
Yvonne Barnes ◽  
Scott Milligan ◽  
Edward Drea
Keyword(s):  
Uric Acid ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Renal Impairment ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Tumor Lysis Syndrome ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Tumor Lysis ◽  
The Real

Introduction The efficacy of rasburicase vs allopurinol for the prevention of hyperuricemia (HU) of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) has been demonstrated in clinical trials, yet studies evaluating these therapies in real-world clinical practice are lacking. Here, we evaluate the real-world use and clinical impact of rasburicase and allopurinol for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced HU. Methods Data were collected from a proprietary aggregated Electronic Medical Records database containing data from 21 healthcare organizations and 26 million patients in the US. Inclusion criteria included patients at high risk (HR) of TLS (Table 1) and diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia, acute myeloid leukemia, Burkitt's Lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and receiving chemotherapy between 01/01/2017 and 06/30/2018. Baseline measures were those within 6 months but closest to and before the start of chemotherapy. Patients were followed until death or 6 months from the start of chemotherapy. Statistical analyses included Student's t-test for continuous variables and Chi-squared, Fisher's exact, or McNemar's test for categorical variables. Multivariate analyses were conducted to assess association of variables and to generate scores for propensity score matching (PSM). Results Of the patients who qualified for the study, 74% (991) received allopurinol, 7% (92 patients) rasburicase, and 19% (248) did not receive a urate-lowering therapy. Patients receiving rasburicase were more likely to be male, with pre-existing TLS at chemotherapy drug initiation, and previously treated with rasburicase or both urate-lowering therapies. The TLS risk population receiving rasburicase presented with higher mean baseline uric acid level (9.0 mg/dL) compared with patients receiving allopurinol (6.9 mg/dL), and over half had baseline uric acid levels >7.5 mg/dL (56% vs 35% for allopurinol). Multivariate analysis further indicated that a greater fraction of patients receiving rasburicase had renal impairment (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <60 mL/min at baseline) compared with the population receiving allopurinol (Table 1). Treatment with rasburicase significantly decreased levels of uric acid and calcium and improved phosphate levels from baseline to post-treatment. These changes were significantly greater than observed in patients receiving allopurinol. In contrast, patients receiving allopurinol recorded improved GFR whereas changes in the rasburicase-treated population did not reach significance (Table 2). Follow-up varied for these treatment groups: 49% of patients at HR of TLS receiving rasburicase died within 6 months of the start of chemotherapy compared with 13% of allopurinol patients (p<0.001). PSM yielded small matched samples no longer representative of the severity of the condition of the rasburicase patients. No significant differences in rasburicase vs allopurinol efficacy were detected in these smaller samples. Conclusions Patients at HR of TLS and receiving rasburicase had higher uric acid levels at baseline, more renal impairment, and were more likely to have experienced TLS previously compared with those receiving allopurinol. Both rasburicase and allopurinol significantly decreased levels of uric acid post-treatment though the mean decrease was significantly higher in rasburicase patients. These data support previous clinical findings that rasburicase is highly effective in reducing uric acid, though observed use in the real-world setting is restricted to patients with increased sickness. These findings support the need for continued research of the outcomes associated with early recognition and prophylaxis with rasburicase for patients with moderate risk and HR features for HU of TLS. Disclosures Radtchenko: Sanofi: Research Funding. Lyons:Sanofi: Employment. Barnes:Sanofi: Employment. Milligan:Trio Health: Employment; AbbVie: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Viiv: Research Funding. Drea:Sanofi-Genzyme: Employment.

scholarly journals Real-World Evidence on Shift in Treatment Practice and Adoption of Novel Agents for Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the United States

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 5013-5013
Author(s):  
Asher Chanan-Khan ◽  
Keri Yang ◽  
Sizhu Liu ◽  
Todd Zimmerman ◽  
Boxiong Tang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
First Line ◽  
Real World Data ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Oral Agents ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction: Clinical availability of highly effective novel agents (including Bruton tyrosine kinase [BTK] and B-cell lymphoma 2 [BCL-2] inhibitors) is rapidly altering the therapeutic landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) necessitating a review of treatment guidelines. However, there is limited real-world data to validate if the availability of these novel agents has translated to a true shift in treatment paradigm for patients treated in the community. As the majority of CLL patients are treated in non-academic community-based settings, we investigated the clinical adoption trends of commercially available FDA approved novel agents for treatment of CLL patients. In addition, given that the COVID-19 pandemic led to major alteration in clinical oncology practices, we further studied if this contributed to an alteration in the selection of therapeutic agents resulting in changes of CLL treatment patterns and the utilization of novel agents in the real-world setting. Thus, the objectives of this study were to examine the utilization pattern of various CLL therapies, as well as evaluate the pattern of adoption of novel agents for treatment and the impact of COVID. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted using the Flatiron Health database that comprised EHR-derived de-identified data. Adult patients (≥18 years) with newly diagnosed CLL from January 2014 to May 2021, with no prior treatment and who were continuously enrolled for at least 6 months before and 3 months after the index date, defined as the first date of CLL/SLL diagnosis were included. Treatment regimens were classified into seven mutually exclusive categories: bendamustine-based chemotherapy, other chemotherapy, anti-CD20-based therapy, ibrutinib, idelalisib, acalabrutinib and venetoclax. Further treatment categorization included chemotherapy vs. targeted therapy, and traditional IV vs. novel oral agents. The impact of the pandemic was examined by comparing the pre- and post-COVID cohorts (defined as 15 months pre- and post- of March 1, 2021). Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the frequency of use of treatment regimens by quarter in each year, line of therapy and between different age, gender, US geographical region, insurance status, and race/ethnicity subgroups. Multivariable regression was conducted to examine factors associated with the likelihood of adoption of novel and oral agents. Statistical significance was determined at a p-value of less than 0.05. Results: A total of 3,037 newly diagnosed CLL patients (median age =73) were included in the study. Over half were male (62.3%), white (74.6%) and commercially-insured (54.1%). Patients were primarily treated in community practices (92%). Overall, a significant trend in adoption of novel agents was observed throughout the years following their approval (Figure 1A). Across the evaluation period, a significant decrease in chemotherapy use was observed from 61.3% (quarter 1, 2014) to 20% (quarter 2, 2021) in favor of targeted therapy as first-line therapy (Figure 1B). In contrast, the utilization of novel oral agents (vs. traditional IV agents) for first-line therapy increased from 9.5% to 70.9% for the same period (Figure 1C). Similar trends were observed for second-line and third-line therapies. Encouragingly, this change in treatment patterns was adopted comparably in all sociodemographic subgroups with no evidence of disparity. While there was no statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-COVID treatment landscape, the adoption of target and novel oral agents has been more pronounced with the COVID pandemic. Conclusions: Results from real-world data suggest that there is a clear shift towards the adoption of novel therapies with preference given to targeted agents and oral therapies in the US since 2014. Further research examining real-world outcomes associated with treatment regimens are needed to inform decision makers. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chanan-Khan: Cellectar: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals, NonoDev, Starton: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company; Ascentage: Research Funding; Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Tabi; Ascentage, Starton, Cellectar, NonoDev, Alpha2 Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Honoraria; BieGene, Jansen, Ascentage: Consultancy. Yang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Liu: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Zimmerman: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Tang: BeiGene, Ltd.: Current Employment. Ailawadhi: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Characterization of Real World Treatment Patterns and Outcomes Among Older Adults with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in the Pre Novel-Agents Era: An Analysis of the 2007-2013 SEER-Medicare Database

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 4773-4773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony R. Mato ◽  
Jordan Jahnke ◽  
Pengxiang Li ◽  
Maneesha Mehra ◽  
Vrushabh P Ladage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Real World ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽  
Novel Agents ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Equity Ownership

Abstract Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common leukemia among adults in Western countries with a median age of 72 years at diagnosis. Data from recent randomized clinical trials of novel agents, such as ibrutinib, have shown significant improvements in overall survival (OS) among older CLL patients. Prior to the introduction of kinase inhibitor therapies, chemoimmunotherapy combinations were the mainstay treatment. However, older individuals and/or those with co-morbid conditions may be less likely to tolerate standard CLL chemoimmunotherapy. While we await real-world outcomes data on how novel agents have continued to change the CLL landscape, little is known about the management and survival among older CLL patients prior to the availability of novel agents in clinical practice. Our study uses comprehensive prescription and medical insurance claims linked with registry data to describe the time to treatment initiation, front line therapy, and survival outcomes in older adults with CLL between 2007-2013--an era that predates the approvals of ibrutinib, idelalisib and obinutuzumab. Methods: The study used the 2007 to 2013 SEER-Medicare linked database. The sample included patients with first primary tumor site as CLL or SLL (ICD-O histology codes 9670 and 9823) diagnosed between 2007 and 2011. This date of first diagnosis of CLL or SLL defines the index date. Patients aged > 65 years with Medicare fee-for-service coverage in the 12 months pre-index and Medicare fee-for-service and prescription drug coverage in the 6-months post-index period or until death were included. Study outcomes included time to first treatment since CLL/SLL diagnosis, type of treatment initiated, and OS since first treatment. The first treatment type was classified into 6 groups (rituximab monotherapy, chlorambucil monotherapy, rituximab + bendamustine, rituximab + fludarabine +/- other treatment, rituximab + other chemotherapy, and other chemotherapy without rituximab). Logistic regression examined factors associated with receiving any treatment within 1- and 2-years of diagnosis. Cox regression examined factors associated with OS. Covariates in both sets of models included age, gender, race, region, low-income subsidy status, anemia/thrombocytopenia at diagnosis, comorbidities, disability status, and year of diagnosis. Cox regressions also included covariates for time to treatment and type of first treatment. Results: We identified 3,214 newly diagnosed CLL/SLL patients. Our sample had a mean age of 78 years (SD: 8), 49% were male, and 30% had anemia and/or thrombocytopenia at diagnosis. Nearly 33% of the patients received at least one CLL treatment over a median follow-up of 1,099 days (IQR: 834-1735 days) from the date of diagnosis. The most common treatments were rituximab monotherapy (26%), fludarabine + rituximab +/- other treatment (23%), and chlorambucil monotherapy (16%). Among those who initiated treatment, the median time to initiation was 791 days (IQR: 127-1344 days) from diagnosis. Logistic regressions indicated that patients aged 75-79 years old (vs. 80+ year olds) and those with anemia and/or thrombocytopenia at diagnosis were significantly more likely to initiate treatment within 1- and 2-years of diagnosis. The median OS from treatment initiation among the 1,047 treated patients was 52.4 months (Figure 1). The estimated 1-year and 2-year OS since treatment initiation was 81% and 69%, respectively. The OS at 2 years was 68% for rituximab monotherapy, 73% for fludarabine + rituximab +/- other treatment, and 59% for chlorambucil monotherapy. Cox regressions showed older age, male gender, disability, higher comorbidity scores, and type of first treatment (chlorambucil monotherapy vs. rituximab as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapies) to be significantly associated with lower OS. Discussion: About one-third of older individuals who were newly diagnosed with CLL initiated treatment over a median follow-up of 3 years. This real world study shows modest 2-year OS in older CLL patients after initiating treatment in the pre-novel therapy era. While available clinical trials suggest novel CLL agents offer significant improvements in survival for older adults with CLL, future studies should examine CLL outcomes in real world settings to correlate how results obtained in recent landmark clinical trials translate into clinical practice. Disclosures Mato: Abbvie, Acerta Pharma, Gilead Sciences, ProNAi, TG Therapeutics, Theradex: Research Funding; Abbvie, Gilead Sciences, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Mehra:Janssen: Employment, Equity Ownership. Mahler:Janssen Research & Development: Employment. Huntington:Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncosec Medical: Equity Ownership; Geron: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Exelixis: Equity Ownership. Doshi:Pfizer Inc.: Other: Spouse owns stock in company, Research Funding; Forest Labs: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; PhRMA: Research Funding; National Pharmaceutical Council: Research Funding; Humana: Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Spouse owns stock; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alkermes: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document