Explore the vast range of titles available.

Series Editors’ NoteThe decision whether to recommend a transplant to someone with acute leukemia in first remission is complex and challenging. Diverse, often confounded co-variates interact to influence one’s recommendation. Briefly, the decision metric can be viewed in three spheres: (1) subject-; (2) transplant-; and (3) disease-related co-variates. Subject-related co-variates include items such as age and comorbidities. Transplant-related co-variates include items such as donor-types, graft source, proposed conditioning and pre- and post-transplant immune suppression.But what of disease-related variables? Previously haematologists relied on co-variates such as WBC at diagnosis, chemotherapy cycles to achieve first remission, cytogenetics and most recently, mutation topography. However, these co-variates have largely been replaced by results of measurable residual disease (MRD)-testing. Many chemotherapy-only and transplant studies report strong correlations between results of MRD-testing on therapy outcomes such as cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR), leukemia-free survival (LFS) or survival. (CIR makes biological sense in a transplant context whereas LFS and survival do not give competing causes of death such as transplant-related mortality (TRM), graft-versus-host disease and interstitial pneumonia unrelated to relapse probability).This raises the question of how useful results are of MRD-testing in predicting CIR after transplants. Elsewhere we discussed accuracy and precision of MRD-testing in predicting outcomes of therapy of acute myeloid leukemia (Estey E, Gale RP. Leukemia 31:1255−1258, 2017; Hourigan CS, Gale RP, Gormley NJ, Ossenkoppele GJ, Walter RB. Leukemia 31:1482−1490, 2017). Briefly put, not terribly good. Although results of MRD-testing are often the most powerful predictor of CIR in multivariable analyses, the C-statistic (a measure of prediction accuracy) is often only about 0.75. This is much better than flipping a fair coin but far from ideal.In the typescript which follows, Othus and colleagues discuss statistical issues underlying MRD-testing in the context of haematopoietic cell transplants. We hope readers, especially haematologists who often need to make transplant recommendations to people with acute leukemia in first remission, will read it carefully and critically. The bottom line is MRD-test data are useful but considerable uncertainty is unavoidable with substantial false-positive and -negative rates. We need to acknowledge this uncertainty to ourselves and to the people we counsel. The authors quote Voltaire who said: Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one. Sadly so, but we do the best we can.Robert Peter Gale, Imperial College London, and Mei-Jie Zhang, Medical College of Wisconsin and CIBMTR.

Since 2017 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved glasdegib, venetoclax, ivosidenib, midostaurin, CPX- 351, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) to treat persons with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has done likewise for midostaurin, CPX-351, and GO. While increasing options for persons, particularly older ones, for whom current therapy is unsatisfactory, or simply not given, these approvals raise several concerns. Although the venetoclax and glasdegib approvals were for persons considered “unfit” for intensive induction, the criteria for fitness were not well defined (age ≥75 per se being insufficient) and are frequently subjective, making it likely that many subjects in the venetoclax and glasdegib registration trials were fit for intensive induction; for example, none had performance status 3–4. Fitness must be assessed together with the potential efficacy of a proposed therapy. We note the modest complete remission rates and durations in the venetoclax + hypomethylating agent trial. Although these formed the basis for FDA approval, it is unclear that better results might not have obtained with more intense induction, as several studies, with considerably longer-follow up, have suggested. Hence, we question the venetoclax (and glasdegib) approvals absent randomized comparisons with intense induction. Given the uncertain relation in older individuals between survival and complete remission (CR), much less responses less than CR, we are skeptical of the sole use of these responses in the ivosidenib and venetoclax approvals; we also question the use of survival, without event-free survival, in the glasdegib approval. Noting the midostaurin and CPX-351 approvals included populations not participating in the registration studies we suggest means to address this issue as well as those involving fitness, randomization, and endpoints.

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin was the first example of antibody-directed chemotherapy in cancer, and was developed for acute myeloid leukaemia. However, randomised trials in which it was combined with standard induction chemotherapy in adults have produced conflicting results. We did a meta-analysis of individual patient data to assess the efficacy of adding gemtuzumab ozogamicin to induction chemotherapy in adult patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. We searched PubMed for reports of randomised controlled trials published in any language up to May 1, 2013, that included an assessment of gemtuzumab ozogamicin given to adults (aged 15 years and older) in conjunction with the first course of intensive induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (excluding acute promyelocytic leukaemia) compared with chemotherapy alone. Published data were supplemented with additional data obtained by contacting individual trialists. The primary endpoint of interest was overall survival. We used standard meta-analytic techniques, with an assumption-free (or fixed-effect) method. We also did exploratory stratified analyses to investigate whether any baseline features predicted a greater or lesser benefit from gemtuzumab ozogamicin. We obtained data from five randomised controlled trials (3325 patients); all trials were centrally randomised and open label, with overall survival as the primary endpoint. The addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin did not increase the proportion of patients achieving complete remission with or without complete peripheral count recovery (odds ratio [OR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·77–1·07; p=0·3). However, the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin significantly reduced the risk of relapse (OR 0·81, 0·73–0·90; p=0·0001), and improved overall survival at 5 years (OR 0·90, 0·82–0·98; p=0·01). At 6 years, the absolute survival benefit was especially apparent in patients with favourable cytogenetic characteristics (20·7%; OR 0·47, 0·31–0·73; p=0·0006), but was also seen in those with intermediate characteristics (5·7%; OR 0·84, 0·75–0·95; p=0·005). Patients with adverse cytogenetic characteristics did not benefit (2·2%; OR 0·99, 0·83–1·18; p=0·9). Doses of 3 mg/m2 were associated with fewer early deaths than doses of 6 mg/m2, with equal efficacy. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin can be safely added to conventional induction therapy and provides a significant survival benefit for patients without adverse cytogenetic characteristics. These data suggest that the use of gemtuzumab ozogamicin should be reassessed and its licence status might need to be reviewed. None.

PurposeAngiosarcoma is a rare aggressive endothelial cell cancer with high mortality. Isolated reports suggest immune checkpoint inhibition efficacy in angiosarcoma, but no prospective studies have been published. We report results for angiosarcoma treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab as a cohort of an ongoing rare cancer study.MethodsThis is a prospective, open-label, multicenter phase II clinical trial of ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) plus nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) for metastatic or unresectable angiosarcoma. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary endpoints include progression-free (PFS) and overall survival, and toxicity. A two-stage design was used.ResultsOverall, there were 16 evaluable patients. Median age was 68 years (range, 25–81); median number of prior lines of therapy, 2. Nine patients had cutaneous and seven non-cutaneous primary tumors. ORR was 25% (4/16). Sixty per cent of patients (3/5) with primary cutaneous scalp or face tumors attained a confirmed response. Six-month PFS was 38%. Altogether, 75% of patients experienced an adverse event (AE) (at least possibly related to drug) (25% grade 3–4 AE); 68.8%, an immune-related AE (irAE) (2 (12.5%), grade 3 or 4 irAEs (alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase increase and diarrhea)). There were no grade 5 toxicities. One of seven patients in whom tumor mutation burden (TMB) was assessed showed a high TMB (24 mutations/mb); that patient achieved a partial response (PR). Two of three patients with PDL1 immunohistochemistry assessed had high PDL1 expression; one achieved a PR.ConclusionThe combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated an ORR of 25% in angiosarcoma, with three of five patients with cutaneous tumors of the scalp or face responding. Ipilimumab and nivolumab warrant further investigation in angiosarcoma.Trial registration numberNCT02834013.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is often unsuccessful for monosomal karyotype (MK) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). To what degree failures are associated with pretransplant measurable residual disease (MRD)—a dominant adverse-risk factor—is unknown. We therefore studied 606 adults with intermediate- or adverse-risk AML in morphologic remission who underwent allogeneic HCT between 4/2006 and 1/2019. Sixty-eight (11%) patients had MK AML, the majority of whom with complex cytogenetics. Before HCT, MK AML patients more often tested MRDpos by multiparameter flow cytometry (49 vs. 18%; P < 0.001) and more likely had persistent cytogenetic abnormalities (44 vs. 13%; P < 0.001) than non-MK AML patients. Three-year relapse/overall survival estimates were 46%/43% and 72%/15% for MRDneg and MRDpos MK AML patients, respectively, contrasted to 20%/64% and 64%/38% for MRDneg and MRDpos non-MK AML patients, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, MRDpos remission status but not MK remained statistically significantly associated with shorter survival and higher relapse risk. Similar results were obtained in several patient subsets. In summary, while our study confirms higher relapse rates and shorter survival for MK-AML compared with non-MK AML patients, these outcomes are largely accounted for by the presence of other adverse prognostic factors, in particular higher likelihood of pre-HCT MRD.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains an important curative-intent treatment for many patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but AML recurrence after allografting is common. Many factors associated with relapse after allogeneic HCT have been identified over the years. Central among these is measurable (“minimal”) residual disease (MRD) as detected by multiparameter flow cytometry, quantitative polymerase chain reaction, and/or next-generation sequencing. Demonstration of a strong, independent prognostic role of pre- and early post-HCT MRD has raised hopes MRD could also serve as a predictive biomarker to inform treatment decision-making, with emerging data indicating the potential value to guide candidacy assessment for allografting as a post-remission treatment strategy, the selection of conditioning intensity, use of small molecule inhibitors as post-HCT maintenance therapy, and preemptive infusion of donor lymphocytes. Monitoring for leukemia recurrence after HCT and surrogacy for treatment response are other considerations for the clinical use of MRD data. In this review, we will outline the current landscape of MRD as a biomarker for patients with AML undergoing HCT and discuss areas of uncertainty and ongoing research.

We conducted a web-based survey among 476 white, Black, and Hispanic parents or caregivers with daughter(s) between the ages of 9–17 to better understand how religion influences HPV vaccine acceptance. Catholic parents were more likely than nonaffiliated parents to have already vaccinated their daughters (vs. being undecided) (OR = 3.26, 95% CI = 1.06, 10.06). Parents with frequent attendance at religious services were more likely than parents who do not attend services to have decided against vaccination (vs. being undecided) (OR = 2.92, 95% CI = 1.25, 6.84). Directions for research and implications for interventions are addressed.

BackgroundMalignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComas) are ultra-rare, aggressive mesenchymal neoplasms associated with poor outcomes. Standard-of-care systemic therapy includes mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibition and chemotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibition has not been previously studied in patients with advanced PEComas in a prospective clinical trial.MethodsThis is an open-label phase 2 trial of ipilimumab (1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks) plus nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) in rare tumors; here we report the cohort of patients with advanced malignant PEComa recruited from >1,000 sites across the USA. Primary end point was objective response rate, with progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity as secondary end points.Results17 patients were enrolled (N=16 evaluable). Median age was 59.5 years (range, 22–77 years) and the majority were female (81%). Best responses included partial response (18.8%), stable disease for <6 months (25.0%), and progressive disease (56.3%). Median OS was 7.5 months (95% CI 3.4 to 34.6) and median PFS was 1.9 months (95% CI 1.8 to 11.8). PFS in responding patients was 11.8, 18.9, and 34.6 months. Available genomic sequencing showed TSC, ATRX, and TP53 mutations; no TFE3 fusions were identified (N=7). Nearly all patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event (AE) of any grade, while 37.5% experienced a grade 3–4 AE. Most common AEs were fatigue (43.8%), pruritus (37.5%), rash (25.0%), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (25.0%). There were no grade 5 AEs.ConclusionsThe combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab demonstrated responses in 18.8% of patients with advanced malignant PEComas. Dual immunotherapy may be an alternative treatment option for certain patients, including those who are unable to tolerate or do not desire prolonged treatment with chemotherapy or mTOR inhibition or have failed to respond to other therapies. Ipilimumab and nivolumab warrants further investigation in this and other rare soft tissue sarcomas.