scholarly journals Advances in Personalized Therapeutic Approaches in Myelodysplastic Syndromes

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (11.5) ◽  
pp. 1444-1447
Author(s):  
Rafael Bejar

Often unrecognized and underdiagnosed, myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) are a rare group of cancers in which the bone marrow fails to produce sufficient healthy blood cells. Although patients with lower-risk MDS can live for >5 years, those with high-risk disease that evolves into acute myeloid leukemia is associated with significantly lower overall survival. At the NCCN 2019 Annual Congress: Hematologic Malignancies, Dr. Rafael Bejar summarized current standard treatment options for patients with MDS and discussed the importance of genetic testing to identify mutations that may impact treatment. Finally, Dr. Bejar described emerging personalized treatment strategies for the management of this disease.

Blood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 129 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey S. Cutler ◽  
John Koreth ◽  
Jerome Ritz

Abstract Clinical outcomes for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation continue to improve, but chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a common toxicity and major cause of nonrelapse morbidity and mortality. Treatment of chronic GVHD has previously relied primarily on corticosteroids and other broadly immune suppressive agents. However, conventional immune suppressive agents have limited clinical efficacy in chronic GVHD, and prolonged immune suppressive treatments result in additional toxicities that further limit clinical recovery from transplant and return to normal daily function. Recent advances in our understanding of the immune pathology of chronic GVHD offer the possibility that new therapeutic approaches can be directed in more precise ways to target specific immunologic mechanisms and pathways. In this review, we briefly summarize current standard treatment options and present new therapeutic approaches that are supported by preclinical studies and early-phase clinical trials suggesting that these approaches may have clinical utility for treatment or prevention of chronic GVHD. Further evaluation of these new therapeutic options in well-designed prospective multicenter trials are needed to identify the most effective new agents and improve outcomes for patients with chronic GVHD.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid E. Slagter ◽  
Marieke A. Vollebergh ◽  
Edwin P. M. Jansen ◽  
Johanna W. van Sandick ◽  
Annemieke Cats ◽  
...  

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and has a high mortality rate. In the last decades, treatment strategy has shifted from an exclusive surgical approach to a multidisciplinary strategy. Treatment options for patients with resectable gastric cancer as recommended by different worldwide guidelines, include perioperative chemotherapy, pre- or postoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy. Although gastric cancer is a heterogeneous disease with respect to patient-, tumor-, and molecular characteristics, the current standard of care is still according to a one-size-fits-all approach. In this review, we discuss the background of the different treatment strategies in resectable gastric cancer including the current standard, the specific role of radiotherapy, and describe the current areas of research and potential strategies for personalization of therapy.


2010 ◽  
Vol 2010 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lagadinou D. Eleni ◽  
Zoumbos C. Nicholas ◽  
Spyridonidis Alexandros

Whereas in younger patients diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatment is straightforward and the goal is cure, the optimal treatment decision for older adults remains highly controversial. Physicians need to determine whether palliation, “something” beyond palliation, intensive therapy, or an investigational therapy is the most appropriate treatment option. This requires understanding of the biology and risk profile of the AML, clinical judgment in evaluating the functional status of the patient, communication skills in understanding the patient's wishes and social background, and medical expertise in available therapies. The physician has to accurately inform the patient about (a) the unique biological considerations of his leukemia and his prognosis; (b) the risks and benefits of all available treatment options; (c) novel therapeutic approaches and how the patient can get access to these treatments. Last but not least, he has to recommend a treatment. This paper tries to discuss each of these issues.


Blood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 129 (7) ◽  
pp. 838-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Gotlib

Abstract Atypical chronic myeloid leukemia, BCR-ABL1 negative (aCML) is a rare myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) for which no current standard of care exists. The challenges of aCML relate to its heterogeneous clinical and genetic features, high rate of transformation to acute myeloid leukemia, and historically poor survival. Therefore, allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation should always be an initial consideration for eligible patients with a suitable donor. Nontransplant approaches for treating aCML have otherwise largely relied on adopting treatment strategies used for MDS and MPN. However, such therapies, including hypomethylating agents, are based on a paucity of data. With an eye toward making a more meaningful impact on response rates and modification of the natural history of the disease, progress will rely on enrollment of patients into clinical trials and molecular profiling of individuals so that opportunities for targeted therapy can be exploited.


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 2507-2507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Surbhi Sidana ◽  
Paul Elson ◽  
Aaron T. Gerds ◽  
Hetty E. Carraway ◽  
Anjali S. Advani ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction Population level data about the survival outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies occurring as second cancers is limited. We undertook one of the largest analyses of second hematologic malignancies (SHM) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology & End Results (SEER) registry to identify factors associated with survival. Methods SEER 9 &13 registries were queried to identify adult patients (pts>18 years) diagnosed with SHM that comprised of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), Acute Lymphoid Leukemia (ALL), Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) & Other Acute Leukemias (OAL, biphenotypic leukemias, myeloid sarcomas & leukemias NOS) > 1 year (yr) after diagnosis of a primary unrelated cancer, using ICD-O-3 codes over a 40 yr period (1973-2012). Data on demographics, follow up, primary tumor & survival were abstracted. Univariate & multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors influencing survival of SHM & compared with hematologic malignancies occurring as first cancers. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported & significance was set at p< 0.01. Results SHM cases included 4665 AML, 3569 MDS, 1140 OAL, 1076 CML & 536 ALL pts. Median age at diagnosis of SHM was 73 yrs (range, 18-100) for AML, 79 yrs (18-100) for MDS, 74 yrs(20-99) for OAL, 74 yrs(18-98) for CML & 70 yrs(19-97) for ALL. Pts>60 yrs comprised 79.2% of AML, 92% of MDS, 88.7% of OAL, 82.9% of CML & 75.2% of ALL cases. Gender distribution was similar across all categories, with females comprising 48.5% of AML, 42.2% of MDS, 45.3% of OAL, 42.8% of CML & 50.2% of ALL cases. More than 85% of pts in each group were Caucasians. While the majority of pts had one primary unrelated cancer (82-89%), 14% of AML pts, 17.8% of MDS pts, 13.8% of OAL, 15.3% of CML pts& 10.6% of ALL pts had >1 primary unrelated cancer. Most common primary sites were prostate (19.1-29.6%), breast (16.1-21.9%) & colorectal (9.3-14.5%). Median survival (range) was as follows: AML 0.2 yrs (0-28.2); MDS 1.5 yrs (0-14); OAL 0.2 yrs (0-29.1); CML 2.5 yrs (0-27.1); & ALL 0.7 yrs (0-28.8). Median latency periods (range) for secondary cancers were as follows: AML 5.2 yrs (1.0-24.2); MDS 7.6 yrs (1.0-35.5); OAL 5.7 yrs (1.0-=34.3); CML 5.2 yrs (1.0-31.6); & ALL 6.2 yrs (1.0-35.5). In univariable analyses, age <60 yrs predicted for better survival (p<0.0001) for all SHM, as did diagnosis in recent yrs (2001-2012) (p< 0.0001 for AML, OAL, CML & ALL). Effect of time period on survival for MDS was not done, as it became formally reportable in 2001. Having >2 primaries was associated with an unfavorable outcome for subsequent AML (HR=1.15; 1.08-1.23; p < 0.0001), MDS (HR=1.13; 1.05-1.22: p=0.001) & CML (HR=1.30; 1.13-1.48: p=0.0002). In multivariable analyses, advancing age was an independent adverse prognostic factor for all secondary leukemias & MDS, both as a continuous variable & when categorized as <60 yrs vs. >60 yrs (p<0.001). Race & gender did not impact survival. Using breast cancer as a referent primary, AML pts had worse outcomes following colorectal (HR=1.31; 1.14-1.5; p=0.0002) or lung (HR=1.46; 1.22-1.74; p< 0.0001) primaries, while MDS pts fared worse with prior lung (HR=1.61; 1.22-2.12; p=0.0007) or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (HR=1.58; 1.3-1.92: p< 0.0001). Of all 2ndCML cases, those after colorectal cancer had worst survival (HR=1.54; 1.12-2.13; p=0.008). Among SHM pts, MDS pts had better survival than those with AML (HR=0.42; 0.4-0.44: p< 0.0001), as did pts with CML (HR=0.37; 0.35-0.41: p< 0.0001) & ALL (HR=0.64; 0.58-0.70; p< 0.0001). Out OAL had similar outcomes compared to AML (HR=0.99; 0.92-1.05; p=0.66). Pts with CML fared better than MDS (HR=0.47; 0.41-0.54; p< 0.0001) & OAL (HR=0.37; 0.34-0.41: p< 0.0001). Pts with ALL had worse survival than CML (HR=1.8; 1.6-2.03: p< 0.0001) & MDS (HR=1.28; 1.11-1.48: p=0.0005), but better than OAL (HR=0.65; 0.58-0.73: p< 0.0001). (Figure 1) Patients with all SHM, except CML, had worse outcomes compared to those with primary hematologic cancers (Figure 2). Conclusion The prolonged latencies for SHM in this study suggest that they are likely therapy-related. Our findings show that type & number of primary cancers influence survival of subsequent leukemias & MDS. SHM have worse survival compared to those with primary hematologic malignancies except CML where non-separation of survival curves suggest that CML as SHM does not behave like a therapy-related neoplasm. Disclosures Sekeres: TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Author(s):  
Heidi D. Klepin ◽  
David Rizzieri ◽  
Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Valeria Magarotto ◽  
Barbara Eichhorst

Hematologic malignancies are a common cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults, who represent the majority of patients diagnosed with these diseases. Treatment options and disease outcomes have improved in recent years because of the development of novel treatment strategies and the design of elderly-specific clinical trials. Despite this, extrapolation of clinical trial data to patients routinely seen in practice is challenging because of the presence of multimorbidity and functional impairments. Individualized treatment decision making requires not only an understanding of underlying tumor biology but also careful estimation of an older patient's anticipated ability to withstand the stresses of therapy. This article will discuss approaches to standardizing patient assessment strategies and tailoring therapeutic decisions for older adults with hematologic malignancies with a focus on acute myeloid leukemia (AML), allogeneic bone marrow transplantation, multiple myeloma (MM), and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL).


2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Susann Rößler ◽  
Oliver Bader ◽  
Friedrich Stölzel ◽  
Ulrich Sommer ◽  
Birgit Spiess ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Patients with hematologic malignancies as well as allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients are at high risk for invasive aspergillosis. Here, we report a culture- and autopsy-proven fatal invasive aspergillosis in an allogeneic HSTC patient which he developed despite posaconazole prophylaxis. The agent was determined to be an azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus strain bearing the cyp51A mutation combination TR46 Y121F M172I T289A. At increasing frequency, the azole resistance of A. fumigatus is being reported globally, limiting treatment options and complicating regimens.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (15) ◽  
pp. 3372
Author(s):  
Tsuyoshi Takeda ◽  
Takashi Sasaki ◽  
Takeshi Okamoto ◽  
Naoki Sasahira

Periampullary cancers are often diagnosed at advanced stages and can cause both biliary and duodenal obstruction. As these two obstructions reduce patients’ performance status and quality of life, appropriate management of the disease is important. Combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction is classified according to the location and timing of the duodenal obstruction, which also affect treatment options. Traditionally, surgical bypass (gastrojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy) has been performed for the treatment of unresectable periampullary cancer. However, it has recently been substituted by less invasive endoscopic procedures due to its high morbidity and mortality. Thus, endoscopic double stenting (transpapillary stenting and enteral stenting) has become the current standard of care. Limitations of transpapillary stenting include its technical difficulty and the risk of duodenal-biliary reflux. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided procedures have emerged as a novel platform and have been increasingly utilized in the management of biliary and duodenal obstruction. As the prognosis of periampullary cancer has improved due to recent advances in chemotherapy, treatment strategies for biliary and duodenal obstruction are becoming more important. In this article, we review the treatment strategies for combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction based on the latest evidence.


Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (22) ◽  
pp. 5722
Author(s):  
Maximilian Fleischmann ◽  
Ulf Schnetzke ◽  
Andreas Hochhaus ◽  
Sebastian Scholl

Treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has improved in recent years and several new therapeutic options have been approved. Most of them include mutation-specific approaches (e.g., gilteritinib for AML patients with activating FLT3 mutations), or are restricted to such defined AML subgroups, such as AML-MRC (AML with myeloid-related changes) or therapy-related AML (CPX-351). With this review, we aim to present a comprehensive overview of current AML therapy according to the evolved spectrum of recently approved treatment strategies. We address several aspects of combined epigenetic therapy with the BCL-2 inhibitor venetoclax and provide insight into mechanisms of resistance towards venetoclax-based regimens, and how primary or secondary resistance might be circumvented. Furthermore, a detailed overview on the current status of AML immunotherapy, describing promising concepts, is provided. This review focuses on clinically important aspects of current and future concepts of AML treatment, but will also present the molecular background of distinct targeted therapies, to understand the development and challenges of clinical trials ongoing in AML patients.


Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4134-4134
Author(s):  
Suleyman Y Goksu ◽  
John Rolwes ◽  
Naveen Premnath ◽  
Prapti Patel ◽  
Ruth Ikpefan ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The risk of severe COVID-19 is increased in patients (pts) with hematologic malignancies, with a reported risk of death of 34% (Vijenthira et al, 2020). The ASH-ASTCT COVID-19 vaccine guidelines indicate that certain immunocompromised patient populations could have an attenuated response to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. However, most SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials required pts to be off immune suppression to be eligible and therefore excluded most pts with hematologic malignancies. Little is known about the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in pts with hematologic malignancies. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the serological response of Pfizer and Moderna vaccination after two doses given in pts with hematologic malignancies with a focus on pts with myeloid malignancies. Methods: Patients with a history of hematologic malignancies treated at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and received two doses of vaccination with quantitative measurement of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Spike antibody to assess vaccination response were included in this study. Baseline patient and disease characteristics including disease status and therapy given at the time of vaccination were collected. Time to vaccine response was defined as having a positive quantifiable spike IgG antibody titer per the lab reference range. The development of COVID-19 infection as well as antibody titer levels were collected. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests and student t-test and ANOVA test were used to compare continuous variables. Results: A total of 61 pts with hematologic malignancies had spike IgG antibody testing after receiving 2 doses of the vaccine were included in this study. The median age at the time of vaccination was 72 (22-85) and 46% of pts were female. Eighty five percent of pts were Caucasian. The majority of pts (67.3%) had a myeloid malignancy (MDS/CMML 29.5%, AML 14.8%, myelofibrosis 16.4%, CML 6.6%), followed by chronic lymphocytic leukemia (16.4%), and others (6.6%). The median time from hematologic malignancy diagnosis to the first vaccine dose was 51 months (0.4-337 months). At the time of vaccine administration, 46 (75%) of pts were on active therapy and 39 (64%) of pts had active disease. Median time from the second vaccine dose to IgG spike antibody testing was 64 days (26-268 days). Most pts (75%) mounted a serological response with quantifiable COVID-IgG spike antibodies, 85% and 56% in myeloid and lymphoid malignancy, respectively. All pts with MDS/CMML/CCUS and CML mounted an immune response (100%), followed by acute myeloid leukemia (n: 7/9, 78%) and myelofibrosis (n: 6/10, 60%). Eight (13%) of pts were receiving hypomethylating agent therapy at the time of vaccination and all (100%) had a positive IgG response. Only one patient developed COVID-19 infection post vaccination with a documented IgG response and 2 pts had COVID-19 infection prior to the first dose of vaccination, both of these pts had IgG titers &gt;10,000. Sixty percent of pts (9/15) with negative IgG response received treatment with either CD20 monoclonal antibodies or BTK inhibitors within 12 months of the first vaccine dose. Two out of three pts (67%) receiving Ruxolitinib had negative serology. Seven pts were on treatment with hydroxyurea, interestingly, all but the 2 pts with polycythemia vera had a negative antibody titer while on treatment with hydroxyurea. There was a strong positive correlation between vaccine titer and absolute lymphocyte count (r 2=0.27, p&lt;0.001) (Figure). Conclusions: In this retrospective study, we demonstrate a higher rate of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in pts with myeloid malignancy with varying responses per treatment and disease subtype compared to pts with B-cell malignancy with variable anti-CD20 or BTK inhibitor therapy. Pts with myelodysplastic syndromes, overlap syndromes of clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance all developed spike antibodies irrespective of hypomethylating therapy or Hydrea as did pts with chronic myeloid leukemia. However, pts with polycythemia vera and those on treatment with Ruxolitinib had an attenuated response to the vaccine. Albeit this single center study, pts with myelodysplastic syndromes should be offered COVID vaccines irrespective of their blood counts or ongoing treatment. Our findings should be validated in a larger group of patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patel: Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene-BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PVI: Honoraria. Anderson: Celgene, BMS, Janssen, GSK, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Awan: Cardinal Health: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Dava Oncology: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Kite pharma: Consultancy; Gilead sciences: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; ADCT therapeutics: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Madanat: Blue Print Pharmaceutical: Honoraria; Onc Live: Honoraria; Stem line pharmaceutical: Honoraria; Geron Pharmaceutical: Consultancy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document