Explore the vast range of titles available.

The approval of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) was based on trials which compared ibrutinib with alkylating agents in patients considered unfit for fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, the most effective chemoimmunotherapy in CLL. We aimed to assess whether ibrutinib and rituximab is superior to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in terms of progression-free survival. This study is an interim analysis of FLAIR, which is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with previously untreated CLL done at 101 UK National Health Service hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years of age with a WHO performance status of 2 or less and disease status requiring treatment according to International Workshop on CLL criteria. Patients with greater than 20% of their CLL cells having the chromosome 17p deletion were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of minimisation (Binet stage, age, sex, and centre) with a random element in a web-based system to ibrutinib and rituximab (ibrutinib administered orally at 420 mg/day for up to 6 years; rituximab administered intravenously at 375 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and at 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2–6 of a 28-day cycle) or fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (fludarabine 24 mg/m2 per day orally on day 1–5, cyclophosphamide 150 mg/m2 per day orally on days 1–5; rituximab as above for up to 6 cycles). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat. Safety analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN01844152, and EudraCT, 2013-001944-76, and recruiting is complete. Between Sept 19, 2014, and July 19, 2018, of 1924 patients assessed for eligibility, 771 were randomly assigned with median age 62 years (IQR 56–67), 565 (73%) were male, 206 (27%) were female and 507 (66%) had a WHO performance status of 0. 385 patients were assigned to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab and 386 patients to ibrutinib and rituximab. After a median follow-up of 53 months (IQR 41–61) and at prespecified interim analysis, median progression-free survival was not reached (NR) with ibrutinib and rituximab and was 67 months (95% CI 63–NR) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (hazard ratio 0·44 [95% CI 0·32–0·60]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was leukopenia (203 [54%] patients in the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab group and 55 [14%] patients in the ibrutinib and rituximab group. Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of 384 patients receiving ibrutinib and rituximab compared with 203 (54%) of 378 patients receiving fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab. Two deaths in the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab group and three deaths in the ibrutinib and rituximab group were deemed to be probably related to treatment. There were eight sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths in the ibrutinib and rituximab group and two in the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab group. Front line treatment with ibrutinib and rituximab significantly improved progression-free survival compared with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab but did not improve overall survival. A small number of sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths in the ibrutinib and rituximab group were observed largely among patients with existing hypertension or history of cardiac disorder. Cancer Research UK and Janssen.

Background In the absence of randomized studies directly comparing chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapies, this study used matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in patients with relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Methods Primary data sources included individual patient data from the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (TRANSCEND [NCT02631044]; N  = 256 for efficacy set, N  = 269 for safety set) for liso-cel and summary-level data from the ZUMA-1 study (NCT02348216; N  = 101 for efficacy set, N  = 108 for safety set) for axi-cel. Inter-study differences in design, eligibility criteria, baseline characteristics, and outcomes were assessed and aligned to the extent feasible. Clinically relevant prognostic factors were adjusted in a stepwise fashion by ranked order. Since bridging therapy was allowed in TRANSCEND but not ZUMA-1, the initial efficacy and safety analyses included bridging therapy use as a matching factor (TRANSCEND patients who received bridging therapy were removed). Subsequent sensitivity analyses excluded this matching factor. Results The initial analysis showed similar MAIC-weighted efficacy outcomes between TRANSCEND and ZUMA-1 for overall and complete response rates (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.40 [0.56–3.49] and 1.21 [0.56–2.64], respectively) and for overall survival and progression-free survival (hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.81 [0.44–1.49] and 0.95 [0.58–1.57], respectively). MAIC-weighted safety outcomes favored liso-cel, with significantly lower odds of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.03 [0.01–0.07] and 0.08 [0.01–0.67], respectively) and study-specific neurological events (0.16 [0.08–0.33] and 0.05 [0.02–0.15], respectively). Efficacy and safety outcomes remained similar in sensitivity analyses, which did not include use of bridging therapy as a matching factor. Conclusions After matching and adjusting for clinically relevant prognostic factors, liso-cel demonstrated comparable efficacy and a more favorable safety profile compared with axi-cel in patients with third- or later-line relapsed or refractory LBCL. Trial registration: NCT02631044 and NCT02348216

High-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) is used in the treatment of a range of adult and childhood cancers. Although HDMTX can provide effective anti-tumor activity with an acceptable safety profile for most patients, delayed methotrexate elimination (DME) develops in a minority of patients receiving HDMTX and may be accompanied by renal dysfunction and potentially life-threatening toxicity. A panel of European physicians with experience in the use of HDMTX as well as of glucarpidase convened to develop a series of consensus statements to provide practical guidance on the prevention and treatment of DME, including the use of glucarpidase. Robust implementation of supportive measures including hyperhydration and urine alkalinization emerged as critical in order to reduce the risk of DME with HDMTX treatment, with leucovorin rescue critical in reducing the risk of DME complications. Early recognition of DME is important to promptly implement appropriate treatment including, intensified hydration, high-dose leucovorin and, when appropriate, glucarpidase.

Background Primary diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the central nervous system (PCNSL) is a rare disorder with an increasing incidence over the past decades. High-level evidence has been reported for the MATRix regimen (high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), high-dose AraC (HD-AraC), thiotepa and rituximab) followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HCT-ASCT) supporting this approach to be considered a standard therapy in newly diagnosed PCNSL patients ≤ 70 years. However, early treatment-related toxicities (predominantly infectious complications), occurring in up to 28% per MATRix cycle, diminish its therapeutic success. Furthermore, sensitivity to first-line treatment is an independent prognostic factor for improved overall survival (OS) in PCNSL. Thus, patients achieving early partial remission (PR) after 2 cycles of MATRix might be over-treated with 4 cycles, in the context of consolidation HCT-ASCT. Methods This is an open-label, multicentre, randomized phase III trial with two parallel arms. 326 immunocompetent patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL will be recruited from 37 German, 1 Austrian and 12 UK sites. Additional IELSG (International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group) sites are planned. The objective is to demonstrate superiority of a de-escalated and optimised remission induction treatment strategy, followed by HCT-ASCT. Randomization (1:1) will be performed after completion of all screening procedures. Patients in Arm A (control treatment) will receive 4 cycles of MATRix. Patients in Arm B (experimental treatment) will receive a pre-phase (R/HD-MTX), followed by 2 cycles of MATRix. Patients in both arms achieving PR or better will proceed to HCT-ASCT (BCNU, thiotepa). The primary endpoint of the study is event-free-survival (EFS), defined as time from randomization to premature end of treatment due to any reason, lymphoma progression or death whichever occurs first. Secondary endpoints include OS, progression free survival (PFS), toxicity, neurocognitive impairment and quality of life. Minimal follow-up is 24 months. Discussion Current treatment options for PCNSL in patients ≤ 70 years have improved remarkably over recent years. However, the potential efficacy benefits are offset by an increased incidence of short-term toxicities which can impact on treatment delivery and hence on survival outcomes. In patients ≤ 70 years with newly diagnosed PCNSL addressing the need to reduce treatment-related toxicity by de-escalating and optimising the induction phase of treatment, is a potentially attractive treatment strategy. Trial registration German clinical trials registry DRKS00022768 registered June 10 th , 2021.

Patients with hematological malignancies are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes due to compromised immune responses, but the insights of these studies have been compromised due to intrinsic limitations in study design. Here we present the PROSECO prospective observational study ( NCT04858568 ) on 457 patients with lymphoma that received two or three COVID-19 vaccine doses. We show undetectable humoral responses following two vaccine doses in 52% of patients undergoing active anticancer treatment. Moreover, 60% of patients on anti-CD20 therapy had undetectable antibodies following full vaccination within 12 months of receiving their anticancer therapy. However, 70% of individuals with indolent B-cell lymphoma displayed improved antibody responses following booster vaccination. Notably, 63% of all patients displayed antigen-specific T-cell responses, which increased after a third dose irrespective of their cancer treatment status. Our results emphasize the urgency of careful monitoring of COVID-19-specific immune responses to guide vaccination schemes in these vulnerable populations.

Background There are no head-to-head clinical studies comparing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies for the treatment of relapsed or refractory aggressive large B-cell lymphomas. Naive, indirect comparisons may be inappropriate, as the study designs and patient populations could differ substantially. Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) can reduce many biases associated with indirect comparisons between studies. To determine the comparative efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) to tisagenlecleucel, we describe an unanchored MAIC of the pivotal studies TRANSCEND NHL 001 (TRANSCEND; NCT02631044; liso-cel) and JULIET (NCT02445248; tisagenlecleucel). Methods Individual patient data (IPD) from TRANSCEND were available to the authors; for the JULIET pivotal study, summary-level data from the published study were used. To balance the populations between two studies, IPD from TRANSCEND were adjusted to match the marginal distribution (e.g., mean, variance) of clinical factors among patients from JULIET. Results Results from the primary MAIC showed liso-cel had statistically significant greater efficacy than tisagenlecleucel (objective response rate: odds ratio [OR] = 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.63‒4.74; complete response rate: OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.22‒3.30; progression-free survival: hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.47‒0.91; overall survival: HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47‒0.95). MAIC of safety outcomes showed lower ORs for all-grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome, and grade ≥ 3 prolonged cytopenia for liso-cel when compared with tisagenlecleucel; there were no statistically significant differences detected for other safety outcomes. Conclusions Overall, this MAIC of two CAR T-cell therapies indicates liso-cel had favorable efficacy and a comparable or better safety profile relative to tisagenlecleucel. Clinical trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02631044 and NCT02445248.

The purpose of our study is to provide information on safety and efficacy of ibrutinib as salvage treatment after allo-HSCT for CLL. A total of 56 patients were included, 36 (64%) males; median age at transplantation was 48 years (range: 35–64) and the median number of treatment lines prior to transplantation was 3 (1–10). The median time between allo-HSCT and Ibrutinib was 30 months (range: 1–140). Overall, 40 (71%) patients responded to Ibrutinib; 23 (41%) PR, and 17 (30%) CR. At time of ibrutinib initiation, ten patients had active chronic GVHD that resolved under Ibrutinib, whilst a single patient developed limited de novo chronic GVHD on Ibrutinib. Fourteen patients discontinued ibrutinib, four because of toxicity and ten because of disease progression. Overall, 14 patients progressed (median PFS = 24 months) among them 10 died. Two-year OS and PFS probabilities were 72% (95% CI: 52–84) and 50% (95% CI: 32–66), respectively. Patients with late relapse after allo-HSCT (≥24 months) had a better PFS after ibrutinib. Our study shows that ibrutinib can be safely administered for CLL relapse after allo-HSCT, with comparable efficacy to non-transplanted patients with high-risk disease.

Introduction High‐dose methotrexate (HDMTX) is administered for the treatment of some malignancies. Serious complications after the administration of HDMTX are rare, but occasionally MTX may precipitate in the renal tubes causing a delayed elimination leading to renal, multiorgan toxicities and to life‐threatening complications. This study aims to estimate the incidence and clinical management of delayed MTX elimination in France, Germany, Italy, and the UK. Methods Twelve haemato‐oncology and pediatric oncology clinical experts from leading European hospitals participated in the study. A two‐round Delphi methodology was used to gather data on different variables relevant to evaluate the HDMTX induced‐toxicity impact. For quantitative data, median and interquartile ranges were calculated. Data on prevalence was calculated considering the number of patients in each hospital and the population they cover, and then, extrapolated to the country population. Results The total number of patients treated annually with HDMTX in France, Germany, Italy, and the UK is estimated in 7155. Of these, 16% are estimated to develop delayed MTX elimination and around 9% may develop HDMTX‐induced acute kidney injury (AKI). Leucovorin, hyperhydration and urine alkalinization are applied to prevent MTX toxicity and precipitation whilst glucarpidase, hemofiltration and hemodialysis are being used for persisting toxic MTX serum levels. Grade 3 systemic toxicities are common in these patients, hematologic and gastrointestinal being the most common ones. Conclusions This report provides expert clinical practice experience and opinion of the incidence and management of HDMTX‐delayed elimination in France, Germany, Italy and the UK, thereby contributing to the evidence available on this relevant medical condition which can be life‐threatening.

BackgroundSulfasalazine-induced cytopenia, nephrotoxicity and hepatotoxicity is uncommon during long-term treatment. Some guidelines recommend 3 monthly monitoring blood tests indefinitely during long-term treatment while others recommend stopping monitoring after 1 year. To rationalise monitoring, we developed and validated a prognostic model for clinically significant blood, liver or kidney toxicity during established sulfasalazine treatment.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingUK primary care. Data from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold and Aurum formed independent development and validation cohorts.ParticipantsAge ≥18 years, new diagnosis of an inflammatory condition and sulfasalazine prescription.Study period1 January 2007 to 31 December 2019.OutcomeSulfasalazine discontinuation with abnormal monitoring blood-test result.AnalysisPatients were followed up from 6 months after first primary care prescription to the earliest of outcome, drug discontinuation, death, 5 years or 31 December 2019. Penalised Cox regression was performed to develop the risk equation. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination.Results8936 participants were included in the development cohort (473 events, 23 299 person-years) and 5203 participants were included in the validation cohort (280 events, 12 867 person-years). Nine candidate predictors were included. The optimism adjusted R2D and Royston D statistic in the development data were 0.13 and 0.79, respectively. The calibration slope (95% CI) and Royston D statistic (95% CI) in validation cohort was 1.19 (0.96 to 1.43) and 0.87 (0.67 to 1.07), respectively.ConclusionThis prognostic model for sulfasalazine toxicity uses readily available data and should be used to risk-stratify blood-test monitoring during established sulfasalazine treatment.

Autologous stem‐cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard therapy for relapsed/refractory large B‐cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL), but many patients are either ineligible or unable to receive it. This retrospective study characterized outcomes in R/R LBCL, delineated by eligibility for, and receipt of, ASCT. Median progression‐free survival (PFS) and event‐free survival (EFS) for patients undergoing ASCT were 35.2 and 31.6 months (overall survival [OS] not reached). Median PFS, EFS, and OS were 4.3, 4.3, and 6.9 months for ineligible patients, and 2.7, 2.6, and 9.4 months for those eligible for but unable to receive ASCT. This highlights an unmet need for alternative therapies in patients unable to receive ASCT.