Search

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have improved the outcome and life expectancy of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Patients are diagnosed with CML at younger ages, and patients treated for CML may become pregnant or choose to breastfeed. The information available to date on the safety of TKIs during pregnancy and lactation and the optimal management of these patients is largely anecdotal, based on personal or small-group experience, and heterogeneous. A panel of interested parties was convened by U.S. Food and Drug Administration to analyze the current data and discuss possible solutions. Possible solutions include prospective data collection, in clinical trials and in routine clinical practice, a more uniform and specific data collection, and greater coordination among involved entities. As patients with cancer are living longer, frequently receiving therapies for extended periods of time (or for life), data on appropriate management of patients through different reproductive phases of life are needed. It is thus time to change our approach for how to study treatment of cancer (including CML) during pregnancy or breastfeeding to develop evidence-based guidelines for safe and effective patient care., (©2024 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Bosutinib is a second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and for patients with Ph + chronic phase, accelerated phase, or blast phase CML resistant or intolerant to prior therapy. As is the case for all TKIs approved for treatment of CML, bosutinib is associated with adverse events (AEs) that require appropriate management to ensure adherence to treatment and optimized outcomes. The aim of this review is to provide physicians with updated practical information for the prevention and management of AEs occurring during treatment with bosutinib, including dosing strategies, based on the latest published evidence and clinical experience. Clinical studies and real-world evidence have shown bosutinib has a generally favorable safety profile, which has remained consistent across lines of therapy and in long-term reports. Adjusting the starting dose and/or modifying the dose during treatment with bosutinib are important strategies to manage AEs and improve tolerability, which are recognized within the label and in treatment guidelines. Dosing adjustment strategies to manage AEs are a recognized management approach for other TKIs in the treatment of CML and are not exclusive to bosutinib. In summary, long-term results from clinical trials and emerging real-world evidence demonstrate bosutinib has a safety profile that can largely be managed with treatment modifications and/or supportive care. Increased experience in managing toxicities and by using a personalized dosing approach may further improve adherence and outcomes with bosutinib., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This study investigates COVID-19 outcomes and immune response in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, comparing effectiveness of various vaccine options. Data from 118 CML patients (85 in Brazil, 33 in the US) showed similar infection rates prior (14% Brazil, 9.1% US) and post-vaccination (24.7% vs. 27.3%, respectively). In Brazil, AstraZeneca and CoronaVac were the most commonly used vaccine brands, while in the US, Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines dominated. Despite lower seroconversion in the Brazilian cohort, all five vaccine brands analyzed prevented severe COVID-19. Patients who received mRNA and recombinant viral vector vaccines (HR: 2.20; 95%CI 1.07-4.51; p  < .031) and those that had achieved at least major molecular response (HR: 1.51; 95% CI 1.01-3.31; p  < .0001) showed higher seroconversion rates. Our findings suggest that CML patients can generate antibody responses regardless of the vaccine brand, thereby mitigating severe COVID-19. This effect is more pronounced in patients with well-controlled disease.

Asciminib targets the BCR::ABL1 myristoyl pocket, maintaining activity against BCR::ABL1 T315I , which is resistant to most approved adenosine triphosphate-competitive tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We report updated phase I results (NCT02081378) assessing safety/tolerability and antileukemic activity of asciminib monotherapy 200 mg twice daily in 48 heavily pretreated patients with T315I-mutated chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-CP; data cutoff: January 6, 2021). With 2 years' median exposure, 56.3% of patients continued receiving asciminib. Overall, 62.2% of evaluable patients achieved BCR::ABL1 ≤1% on the International Scale (IS); 47.6% and 81.3% of ponatinib-pretreated and -naive patients, respectively, achieved BCR::ABL1 IS  ≤1%. Of 45 evaluable patients, 48.9% achieved a major molecular response (MMR, BCR::ABL1 IS  ≤0.1%), including 34.6% and 68.4% of ponatinib-pretreated and -naive patients, respectively. MMR was maintained until data cutoff in 19 of 22 patients who achieved it. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) included increased lipase level (18.8%) and thrombocytopenia (14.6%). Five (10.4%) patients experienced AEs leading to discontinuation, including 2 who discontinued asciminib and died due to COVID-19; these were the only deaths reported. These results show asciminib's effectiveness, including in almost 50% of ponatinib pretreated patients, and confirm its risk-benefit profile, supporting its use as a treatment option for T315I-mutated CML-CP., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Recurrent mutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (m IDH1 ) occur in about 7% to 14% of all cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The discovery of targetable mutations in AML, including IDH mutations, expanded the therapeutic landscape of AML and led to the development of targeted agents. Despite significant advances in current treatment options, remission and overall survival rates remain suboptimal. The IDH1 inhibitor, olutasidenib, demonstrated encouraging safety and clinical benefits as monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) m IDH1 AML., Areas Covered: This review outlines the olutasidenib drug profile and summarizes key safety and efficacy data, focusing on the 150 mg twice daily dose from the pivotal registrational cohort of the phase 2 trial that formed the basis for the US Food and Drug Administration approval of olutasidenib in patients with R/R AML with a susceptible IDH1 mutation., Expert Opinion: Olutasidenib offers patients with R/R m IDH1 AML a new treatment option, with improved complete remission and a longer duration of response than other targeted m IDH1 treatment options. Olutasidenib provided clinical benefit with a manageable safety profile. Additional analyses to further characterize the safety and efficacy of olutasidenib in frontline and R/R settings as monotherapy and as combination therapy are ongoing.

Background: Patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) need long-term therapy with high efficacy and safety. Asciminib, a BCR::ABL1 inhibitor specifically targeting the ABL myristoyl pocket, may offer better efficacy and safety and fewer side effects than currently available frontline ATP-competitive tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)., Methods: In a phase 3 trial, patients with newly diagnosed CML were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either asciminib (80 mg once daily) or an investigator-selected TKI, with randomization stratified by European Treatment and Outcome Study long-term survival score category (low, intermediate, or high risk) and by TKI selected by investigators before randomization (including imatinib and second-generation TKIs). The primary end points were major molecular response (defined as BCR::ABL1 transcript levels ≤0.1% on the International Scale [IS]) at week 48, for comparisons between asciminib and investigator-selected TKIs and between asciminib and investigator-selected TKIs in the prerandomization-selected imatinib stratum., Results: A total of 201 patients were assigned to receive asciminib and 204 to receive investigator-selected TKIs. The median follow-up was 16.3 months in the asciminib group and 15.7 months in the investigator-selected TKI group. A major molecular response at week 48 occurred in 67.7% of patients in the asciminib group, as compared with 49.0% in the investigator-selected TKI group (difference, 18.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6 to 28.2; adjusted two-sided P<0.001]), and in 69.3% of patients in the asciminib group as compared with 40.2% in the imatinib group within the imatinib stratum (difference, 29.6 percentage points; 95% CI, 16.9 to 42.2; adjusted two-sided P<0.001). The percentage of patients with a major molecular response at week 48 was 66.0% with asciminib and 57.8% with TKIs in the second-generation TKI stratum (difference, 8.2 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.1 to 21.5). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher and events leading to discontinuation of the trial regimen were less frequent with asciminib (38.0% and 4.5%, respectively) than with imatinib (44.4% and 11.1%) and second-generation TKIs (54.9% and 9.8%)., Conclusions: In this trial comparing asciminib with investigator-selected TKIs and imatinib, asciminib showed superior efficacy and a favorable safety profile in patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML. Direct comparison between asciminib and second-generation TKIs was not a primary objective. (Funded by Novartis; ASC4FIRST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04971226)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Early molecular response (EMR) at 3 months is predictive of improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase (CML-CP). Although about one-third of patients treated with first-line imatinib do not achieve EMR, long-term OS and PFS are still observed in most patients. DASCERN (NCT01593254) is a prospective, phase IIb, randomized trial evaluating a switch to dasatinib in patients who have not achieved EMR after 3 months of treatment with first-line imatinib. Early analysis demonstrated an improved major molecular response (MMR) rate at 12 months with dasatinib versus imatinib (29% vs. 13%, P=0.005). Here, we report results from the final 5-year follow-up. In total, 174 patients were randomized to dasatinib and 86 to remain on imatinib. Forty-six (53%) patients who remained on imatinib but subsequently experienced failure were allowed to cross over to dasatinib per protocol. At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the cumulative MMR rate was significantly higher in patients randomized to dasatinib versus imatinib (77% vs. 44%, P.

Objective: This systematic review aimed to investigate what are the most relevant social determinants of health (SDH), how they are measured, how they interact among themselves and what is their impact on the outcomes of cervical cancer patients., Methods: Search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases from January 2001 to September 2022. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022346854). We followed the PICOS strategy: Population- Patients treated for cervical cancer in the United States; Intervention - Any SDH; Comparison- None; Outcome measures- Cancer treatment outcomes related to the survival of the patients; Types of studies- Observational studies. Two reviewers extracted the data following the PRISMA guidelines. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies was used for risk of bias (ROB) assessment., Results: Twenty-four studies were included (22 had low and 2 had moderate ROB). Most manuscripts analyzed data from public registries (83.3%) and only one SDH (54.17%). The SDH category of Neighborhood was not included in any study. Although the SDH were measured differently across the studies, not being married, receiving treatment at a low-volume hospital, and having public insurance (Medicaid or Medicare) or not being insured was associated with shorter survival of cervical cancer patients in most studies., Conclusions: There is a deficit in the number of studies comprehensively assessing the impact of SDH on cervical cancer treatment-related outcomes. Marital status, hospital volume and health insurance status are potential predictors of worse outcome., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is characterized by leukocytosis with left-shifted neutrophilia, basophilia, eosinophilia, and variable thrombocytosis. However, extremely rare cases of patients with CML without significant leukocytosis and thrombocytosis (aleukemic phase [ALP] CML, or CML-ALP) have been reported. Due to its rarity and limited awareness, there remains a significant knowledge gap concerning the pathologic diagnosis, disease progression, and optimal patient management and outcomes. In this multi-institutional study, we investigated 31 patients with CML-ALP. Over half (54.8%) of patients had a history of or concurrent hematopoietic or nonhematopoietic malignancies. At time of diagnosis of CML-ALP, approximately 26.7% of patients exhibited neutrophilia, 56.7% had basophilia, and 13.3% showed eosinophilia. The median number of metaphases positive for t(9;22)(q34;q11.2) was 15, with a median of 38.5% of interphase nuclei positive for BCR::ABL1 by fluorescence in situ hybridization. The median BCR::ABL1 level was 26.14%. Remarkably, 14 (45.2%) patients were initially misdiagnosed or not diagnosed before karyotype or fluorescence in situ hybridization information for BCR::ABL1 became available. Twenty-five patients received tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). One patient developed blast crisis while on TKI treatment 8 months after initial diagnosis. With a median follow-up time of 46.1 months, 20 of 22 patients who received TKI therapy and had detailed follow-up information achieved complete cytogenetic remission or deeper, 15 achieved major molecular remission or deeper, and 10 achieved molecularly undetectable leukemia. In conclusion, given the frequent occurrence of prior or concurrent malignancies, aleukemic presentation, and low level of t(9;22)(q34;q11.2)/BCR::ABL1, misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis is common among these patients. While these patients generally respond well to TKIs, rare patients may develop blastic transformation. It is therefore important for pathologists and hematologists to be aware of this highly unusual presentation of CML to ensure timely diagnosis and appropriate management., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Social determinants of health (SDHs) have been reported as relevant factors responsible for health inequity. We sought to assess clinical data from observational studies conducted in the United States evaluating the impact of SDHs on the outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies. Thus, we performed a systematic review in 6 databases on 1 September 2021, in which paired reviewers independently screened studies and included data from 41 studies. We assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools and analyzed the data using a descriptive synthesis. The most common SDH domains explored were health care access and quality (54.3%) and economic stability (25.6%); others investigated were education (19%) and social and community context (7.8%). We identified strong evidence of 5 variables significantly affecting survival: lack of health insurance coverage or having Medicare or Medicaid insurance, receiving cancer treatment at a nonacademic facility, low household income, low education level, and being unmarried. In contrast, the reports on the effect of distance traveled to the treatment center are contradictory. Other SDHs examined were facility volume, provider expertise, poverty, and employment rates. We identified a lack of data in the literature in terms of transportation, debt, higher education, diet, social integration, environmental factors, or stress. Our results underscore the complex nature of social, financial, and health care barriers as intercorrelated variables. Therefore, the management of hematologic malignancies needs concerted efforts to incorporate SDHs into clinical care, research, and public health policies, identifying and addressing the barriers at a patient-based level to enhance outcome equity (PROSPERO CRD42022346854)., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Background: Improvements in prevention, early detection, and effective cancer therapy have decreased cancer-related mortality; however, significant health disparities exist. Therefore, we investigated the impact of these disparities on survival., Methods: In the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, we identified 784,341 patients with cancer between 1990 and 2016 in Georgia, 68,493 between 1990 and 1999; 371,353 between 2000 and 2009; and 322,932 between 2010 and 2016. We assessed the overall survival (OS) of patients with all cancers, chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and lung cancer, given the dramatic improvement in outcomes in patients with CML since 2000 compared to the generally considerably worse outcomes in lung cancer. In addition, we assessed the distance from each county to the Georgia Cancer Center (GCC) or the National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Center (NCI-CC)., Results: The 5-year OS of patients with any cancer was 55%, and the 5-year OS of each county ranged from 33% to 82% (interquartile range, 51%-65%) (P < .001). In patients with lung cancer and CML, the 5-year OS rates were 15% and 52%, respectively. The geographic differences between counties were relatively small and constant over time for patients with lung cancer. However, geographic differences were more prominent in patients with CML and widened after the introduction of modern therapies. Multivariate Cox regression showed that age, median county income, race, and distance to GCC or NCI-CC were predictive factors., Conclusions: Significant disparities in cancer care exist among geographic locations. Geographic differences in survival appear more prominent when highly effective therapies are available., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This is the primary report of the randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 BRIGHT AML 1019 clinical trial of glasdegib in combination with intensive chemotherapy (cytarabine and daunorubicin) or non-intensive chemotherapy (azacitidine) in patients with untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Overall survival (primary endpoint) was similar between the glasdegib and placebo arms in the intensive (n = 404; hazard ratio [HR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.782-1.408; two-sided p = 0.749) and non-intensive (n = 325; HR 0.99; 95% CI: 0.768-1.289; two-sided p = 0.969) studies. The proportion of patients who experienced treatment-emergent adverse events was similar for glasdegib versus placebo (intensive: 99.0% vs. 98.5%; non-intensive: 99.4% vs. 98.8%). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, febrile neutropenia, and anemia in the intensive study and anemia, constipation, and nausea in the non-intensive study. The addition of glasdegib to either cytarabine and daunorubicin or azacitidine did not significantly improve overall survival and the primary efficacy endpoint for the BRIGHT AML 1019 phase 3 trial was not met. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03416179., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The BELA and BFORE trials compared bosutinib starting doses of 500 mg once daily (QD) and 400 mg QD, respectively, with imatinib in adults with newly diagnosed chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML). The B1871048 trial evaluated bosutinib 400 mg QD in Japanese patients with newly diagnosed CP-CML., Aim: This analysis assessed the impact of a lower bosutinib starting dose on key efficacy and safety outcomes., Materials & Methods: A pharmacokinetic model was used to estimate metrics of bosutinib exposure, and logistic regression was used to investigate relationships with efficacy (cumulative major molecular response [MMR] and cumulative complete cytogenetic response [CCyR]) and safety outcomes (eight prespecified adverse events)., Results: Totals of 573 and 574 patients were included in the efficacy and safety endpoint analyses, respectively. Cumulative MMR and CCyR were similar across studies. Log(C trough ) and log(C avg ) were significant predictors of MMR and CCyR, and the probability of achieving MMR or CCyR increased 1.3-fold or 2.7-fold for every 1 unit increase in log(C trough ) or log(C avg ), respectively. An exposure-response relationship was identified between time-to-event and risk of diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Significant relationships were also observed between time-to-event and log(C avg ), C trough , and C avg with diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting, respectively., Discussion: A bosutinib exposure-response relationship with safety and efficacy was observed., Conclusion: Compared with 500 mg QD, a bosutinib starting dose of 400 mg QD improved tolerability in some patients with newly diagnosed CP-CML without compromising efficacy., Clinicaltrials: gov identifiers: NCT00574873; NCT02130557; NCT03128411., (© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The standard-of-care (SOC) for genomic testing of myeloid cancers primarily relies on karyotyping/fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) (cytogenetic analysis) and targeted gene panels (usually ≤54 genes) that harbor hotspot pathogenic variants (molecular genetic analysis). Despite this combinatorial approach, ~50% of myeloid cancer genomes remain cytogenetically normal, and the limited sequencing variant profiles obtained from targeted panels are unable to resolve the molecular etiology of many myeloid tumors. In this study, we evaluated the performance and clinical utility of combinatorial use of optical genome mapping (OGM) and a 523-gene next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel for comprehensive genomic profiling of 30 myeloid tumors and compared it to SOC cytogenetic methods (karyotyping and FISH) and a 54-gene NGS panel. OGM and the 523-gene NGS panel had an analytical concordance of 100% with karyotyping, FISH, and the 54-gene panel, respectively. Importantly, the IPSS-R cytogenetic risk group changed from very good/good to very poor in 22% of MDS (2/9) cases based on comprehensive profiling (karyotyping, FISH, and 54-gene panel vs. OGM and 523-gene panel), while additionally identifying six compound heterozygous events of potential clinical relevance in six cases (6/30, 20%). This cost-effective approach of using OGM and a 523-gene NGS panel for comprehensive genomic profiling of myeloid cancers demonstrated increased yield of actionable targets that can potentially result in improved clinical outcomes.

The FDA has an accelerated approval program for drugs that have been identified as promising treatments for serious conditions when the available data suggest that the benefits outweigh the foreseeable risks. All of the currently available treatment options for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) initially went through the accelerated approval program. Here, a group of academic CML experts, patient panelists, and members from the FDA convened to discuss the utility of the accelerated approval program as it pertains to CML, and the utility of this program in future drug development in this disease. The results of that discussion are summarized here., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Asciminib is approved for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML-CP) who received ≥2 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors or have the T315I mutation. We report updated results of a phase 1, open-label, nonrandomized trial (NCT02081378) assessing the safety, tolerability, and antileukemic activity of asciminib monotherapy 10-200 mg once or twice daily in 115 patients with CML-CP without T315I (data cutoff: January 6, 2021). After ≈4-year median exposure, 69.6% of patients remained on asciminib. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) included increased pancreatic enzymes (22.6%), thrombocytopenia (13.9%), hypertension (13.0%), and neutropenia (12.2%); all-grade AEs (mostly grade 1/2) included musculoskeletal pain (59.1%), upper respiratory tract infection (41.7%), and fatigue (40.9%). Clinical pancreatitis and arterial occlusive events (AOEs) occurred in 7.0% and 8.7%, respectively. Most AEs occurred during year 1; the subsequent likelihood of new events, including AOEs, was low. By data cutoff, among patients without the indicated response at baseline, 61.3% achieved BCR::ABL1 ≤ 1%, 61.6% achieved ≤0.1% (major molecular response [MMR]), and 33.7% achieved ≤0.01% on the International Scale. MMR was maintained in 48/53 patients who achieved it and 19/20 who were in MMR at screening, supporting the long-term safety and efficacy of asciminib in this population., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Harold Rabinovitz, MD is a consultant for MetaOptima. All other authors state no conflict of interest.

Asciminib, the first BCR::ABL1 inhibitor that Specifically Targets the ABL Myristoyl Pocket (STAMP), is approved worldwide for the treatment of adults with Philadelphia chromosome-positive chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) treated with ≥2 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). In ASCEMBL, patients with CML-CP treated with ≥2 prior TKIs were randomized (stratified by baseline major cytogenetic response [MCyR]) 2:1 to asciminib 40 mg twice daily or bosutinib 500 mg once daily. Consistent with previously published primary analysis results, after a median follow-up of 2.3 years, asciminib continued to demonstrate superior efficacy and better safety and tolerability than bosutinib. The major molecular response (MMR) rate at week 96 (key secondary endpoint) was 37.6% with asciminib vs 15.8% with bosutinib; the MMR rate difference between the arms, after adjusting for baseline MCyR, was 21.7% (95% CI, 10.53-32.95; two-sided p = 0.001). Fewer grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) (56.4% vs 68.4%) and AEs leading to treatment discontinuation (7.7% vs 26.3%) occurred with asciminib than with bosutinib. A higher proportion of patients on asciminib than bosutinib remained on treatment and continued to derive benefit over time, supporting asciminib as a standard of care for patients with CML-CP previously treated with ≥2 TKIs., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Gemtuzumab-ozogamicin (GO) is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) in which a monoclonal antibody targeting CD33 is covalently linked to the toxin calicheamicin. GO was initially approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of adult patients with CD33 + acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in 2000. However, GO was recalled from the US market due to the lack of efficacy, and higher incidence of hepatotoxicities, including hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD), observed in phase 3 SWOG-0106 study. Since then, several other phase 3 studies have evaluated the efficacy of GO in the frontline treatment of adult patients with AML using different GO doses and schedules. The pivotal study that led to the reconsideration of GO was the French ALFA-0701 study, which used a lower and fractionated dose of GO in combination with standard chemotherapy (SC). Patients treated with the GO combination had a significantly longer survival outcome. The modified schedule also improved the toxicity profile. A systematic review and meta-analysis of over 3000 patients treated in five phase 3 studies showed that adding GO to SC improved relapse-free and overall survival. Most importantly, 6 mg/m 2 dose of GO was associated with higher grade ⩾3 hepatoxicities and VOD than 3 mg/m 2 . The survival benefit was significant in the favorable and intermediate cytogenetic risk groups. This led to the reapproval of GO in 2017 for the treatment of patients with CD33 + AML. Currently, several clinical trials are exploring the role of GO with various combinations and in eliminating the measurable residual disease in patients with CD33 + AML., Competing Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s), 2023.)

Objectives: To assess and compare health care resource utilization (HCRU) rates of asciminib and bosutinib at the Week 24, Week 48, and Week 96 cutoffs among 3 L + patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) in the randomized ASCEMBL trial., Methods: Patients in the ASCEMBL trial (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03106779) were randomized to receive asciminib 40 mg twice daily ( n  = 157) or bosutinib 500 mg once daily ( n  = 76). At each scheduled visit, investigators conducted HCRU assessment on hospitalization, emergency room visit, general practitioner visit, specialist visit and urgent care visit; duration and type of hospitalization for the hospitalized patients; and reasons for HCRU. The number of patients with HCRU, rate of HCRU per patient-year, and length of hospital stay by ward type were compared at Week 24, Week 48, and Week 96 analyses., Results: Lower proportions of patients receiving asciminib versus bosutinib used any resources including hospitalizations, emergency room visits, general practitioner visits, specialist visits, and urgent care visits (23.6% versus 36.8%, 26.1% versus 39.5%, and 28.6% versus 42.6% at Week 24, Week 48, and Week 96 analyses, respectively). After normalizing for treatment exposure, rates of HCRU for any resource per patient-year were significantly lower for asciminib versus bosutinib: 0.25 (95% CI: 0.18-0.34) versus 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55-1.16) at the Week 24 analysis, 0.20 (95% CI: 0.15-0.27) versus 0.47 (95% CI: 0.32-0.66) at the Week 48 analysis, and 0.17 (95% CI: 0.12-0.22) versus 0.40 (95% CI: 0.27-0.55) at the Week 96 analysis. Among the hospitalized patients, mean length of hospital stay was lower for asciminib than bosutinib for most wards at all three timepoints., Conclusions: In the ASCEMBL trial, asciminib-treated patients with CML-CP in 3 L + maintained lower resource utilization compared to bosutinib over the long-term.

Background: Olutasidenib (FT-2102) is a potent, selective, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1). The aims for phase 1 of this phase 1/2 study were to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity of olutasidenib, as monotherapy or in combination with azacitidine, in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome, harbouring mutant IDH1., Methods: In this phase 1/2, multicentre, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with acute myeloid leukaemia or intermediate, high, or very high risk myelodysplastic syndrome harbouring mutant IDH1 at 18 study sites in the USA, Australia, France, and Spain. Other key eligibility criteria included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 with adequate liver and renal function. The primary outcomes were dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose, maximum evaluated dose, and the recommended phase 2 dose of olutasidenib. Olutasidenib was administered orally in doses of 150 mg once daily, 150 mg twice per day, and 300 mg once daily. Azacitidine (75 mg/m 2 ) was administered subcutaneously or intravenously daily for 7 days on, 21 days off. The study was ongoing at the data cutoff (Oct 2, 2019) and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02719574., Findings: Patients were enrolled between Aug 8, 2016, and Nov 14, 2018. 78 patients received olutasidenib as monotherapy (n=32) or in combination with azacitidine (n=46). The median follow-up was 8·3 months (IQR 3·1-13·3) for monotherapy and 10·1 months (4·2-15·3) for combination therapy. 16 (50%) of 32 patients in the monotherapy group and 24 (52%) of 46 patients in the combination therapy group were women. Most patients were White (26 [81%] for monotherapy and 31 [67%] for combination therapy). No dose-limiting toxicities were reported in the dose-escalation cohorts and 150 mg twice per day was declared the recommended phase 2 dose on the basis of safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and clinical activity. The most common (≥20%) grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events with monotherapy were thrombocytopenia (nine [28%] of 32 patients), febrile neutropenia (seven [22%] of 32), and anaemia (seven [22%] of 32); and with combination therapy were thrombocytopenia (19 [41%] of 46), febrile neutropenia (13 [28%] of 46), neutropenia (13 [28%] of 46), and anaemia (nine [20%] of 46). 11 (34%) of 32 patients in the monotherapy group and nine (20%) of 46 patients in the combination therapy group died (most commonly from disease progression [three (9%) of 32 and four (9%) of 46]). No deaths were considered study-drug related. For patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia, 41% (95% CI 21-64; nine of 22) receiving monotherapy and 46% (27-67; 12 of 26) receiving combination therapy had an overall response. For treatment-naive patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, 25% (1-81; one of four) receiving monotherapy and 77% (46-95; ten of 13) receiving combination therapy had an overall response., Interpretation: Olutasidenib, with or without azacitidine, was well tolerated and showed meaningful clinical activity in patients with IDH1-mutated acute myeloid leukaemia. The results of this phase 1 study provide rationale for the continued evaluation of olutasidenib in multiple patient populations with myeloid malignancies., Funding: Forma Therapeutics., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JMW has received research funding from and was a board/advisory committee member for Takeda; has received research funding from Immune System Key Ltd and Takeda; and was a board/advisory committee member for Genentech, Rafael Pharma, Reven Pharma, and Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squib (BMS). MRB has received research funding for her institution from AbbVie, Forma Therapeutics, Kite, Kura, and Takeda. JY has received research funding from Seattle Genetics, Janssen, AROG, Loxo Oncology, and Agios. TP is a consultant to Curios and Daiichi; and has received research funding, is a consultant to, and has recently become an employee of BMS. SL is a consultant to AstraZeneca, BMS, Helsinn, Innate Pharma, and PIN Pharma, and has recently become an employee of Janssen Research and Development. GJS has received research funding, honoraria, is on the speakers’ bureau for, and is a board/advisory committee member for Agios, Gamida, Gilead, and Incyte; has received research funding, honoraria, is on the speakers’ bureau for, holds stock in, and is a board/advisory committee member for Amgen and BMS; has received research funding, honoraria, and is a board/advisory committee member for Novartis, Ono Pharma, and AVM Biotech; has received honoraria, is on the speakers’ bureau for, and is a board/advisory committee member for GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); has received research funding and holds stock in Janssen/Johnson & Johnson; has received research funding and is on the speakers’ bureau for AbbVie, Astellas, Celgene, Karyopharm, and Stemline; has received honoraria and is a board/advisory committee member for AstraZeneca; and has received research funding from Actinium, Actuate, Ambit, Cellectis, Cyclacel, Constellation, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, DeltaFly, Forma Therapeutics, FujiFilm, Genentech/Roche, Geron, Glycomimetics, Kura Oncology, Mateon, Medimmune, Millennium; Onconova, Pfizer, PrECOG, RegImmune, Sangamo, Samus, Sellas, Tolero, and Trovagene. SND has no conflicts to disclose. AP has received honoraria from and is a consultant to AbbVie; is a consultant to Gilead; and has received honoraria from Astellas, Agios, Pfizer, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. PM has received research funding from, is a consultant to, and is on the speakers’ bureau for BMS; and is a consultant to Forma Therapeutics, Syndax, and Kura Oncology. ESW is a consultant to and a board/advisory committee member for AbbVie and Gilead; is a consultant to, and is on the speakers’ bureau for Astellas, Pfizer, and Stemline; is a board/advisory committee member for Rafael Pharmaceuticals; is a consultant to Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kite, Mana Therapeutics, Novartis, PharmaEssentia; and is on the speakers’ bureau for Kura Oncology and Dava Oncology. KPS has received research funding and honoraria from, is a consultant to, and is on the speakers’ bureau of Jazz Pharmaceuticals; has received honoraria from, is a consultant to, and is on the speakers’ bureau for Novartis; has received honoraria from and is on the speakers’ bureau for Incyte; and has received research funding from Rafael, Glycomimetics, and Celgene. AHW has received research funding, honoraria, is a consultant to, is on the speakers’ bureau for, and is a board/advisory committee member for Astellas; has received research funding, honoraria, is on the speakers’ bureau for, and is a board/advisory committee member for AbbVie/Genentech, Amgen, Celgene/BMS, and Novartis; has received research funding, honoraria, is a consultant to, is a board/advisory committee member for Servier and Syndax; has received honoraria, is a consultant to, and is a board/advisory committee member for Janssen and Gilead; has received honoraria, and is a board/advisory committee member for MacroGenetics and Pfizer; has received research funding and honoraria from, and is a board/advisory committee member for AstraZeneca; has received research funding from Astex; and is an employee of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and is eligible for a fraction of the royalty stream related to venetoclax. SDB has received honoraria and research funding from Forma Therapeutics, has received honoraria, research funding, and is a consultant to Agios; has received honoraria, is a consultant to, and is on the speakers’ bureau for Celgene; has received honoraria and is a consult to Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Syros, AbbVie, Bayer, and Janssen; has received honoraria from Seattle Genetics; and is a consultant to Pierre Fabre, Novartis, Pfizer, and Servier. MA is a consultant to and a board/advisory committee member for BMS-Celgene and Novartis; and is a consultant to Astellas, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer. WD is a consultant to Janssen, BMS, and BeiGene. APS has received honoraria from AbbVie, Novartis, and Amgen; and is a board/advisory committee member for Pfizer. CR has received research funding from MaaT Pharma; has received honoraria from Incyte and Janssen; has received honoraria and has membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committee for MacroGenics, Pfizer, and Takeda; has received honoraria, research funding, and has membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committee for Amgen, Astellas, BMS/Celgene and Roche; and has received honoraria, research funding, is a consultant to, and has membership on an entity's board of directors or advisory committee for AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis. BAJ has received research funding to his institution, is a consultant to, and is a board/advisory committee member for AbbVie, BMS, Genentech/Roche, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Treadwell; has received research funding to his institution, is a consultant to, and is a data monitoring committee member for Gilead; has received research funding to his institution, is a consultant to, and is a protocol steering committee member for GlycoMimetics; is a consultant to and a board/advisory committee member for Servier, Takeda, and Tolero; has received travel reimbursement from AbbVie; has received research funding to his institution from 47, Accelerated Medical Diagnostics, Amgen, AROG, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffman-La-Roche, Forma Therapeutics, Hanmi, Immune-Onc, Incyte, Loxo Oncology, LP Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, and Sigma Tau. PBF has received research funding from Forma Therapeutics, Astex Pharmaceuticals, and Incyte. CM has received honoraria from Astellas, BMS, and Celgene. PK, JS, SF, SMG, and JB are employees of and hold stock in Forma Therapeutic. PH was an employee of and holds stock in Forma Therapeutics; and is an employee of and holds stock in Kymera Therapeutics. HM was an employee of and holds stock in Forma Therapeutics. JEC has received research funding for his institution from, and is a consultant to BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Daiichi, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merus, and Forma Therapeutics; has received research funding for his institution from Astellas and Amphivena; and is a consultant to BiolineRx and Bioptah. All authors had access to and had the opportunity to review the study data and are responsible for data analysis and interpretation. All authors participated in writing of the report (including original draft, review, and editing). All authors attest to study completeness, and accuracy of the data and data analysis. JMW and JEC participated in analysis of the data, and directly accessed and verified the underlying data reported in the manuscript. JMW had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Asciminib is the first BCR::ABL1 inhibitor that works by Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket (STAMP). Asciminib has shown favorable efficacy and safety in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase without the T315I mutation who have received ≥2 prior tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in phase I and III clinical trials and in patients with the T315I mutation who have received ≥1 prior TKI in phase I. ASC4FIRST (NCT04971226) is a phase III, multicenter, open-label, randomized study of asciminib versus investigator-selected TKI in patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase. The primary end point is major molecular response at week 48. Secondary end points include responses at and by scheduled time points, safety, pharmacokinetics and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration : NCT04971226 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Purpose: There are significant disparities in care and outcomes for patients with leukemias and multiple myeloma (MM). To evaluate the extent to which clinical trials (CTs) match the demographic and geographic diversity of populations affected by leukemias and MM., Methods: CTs leading to drug approval were identified from the US Food and Drug Administration databases. Demographic and geographic data were collected from ClinicalTrials.gov and primary manuscripts. Standard descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data in frequencies and proportions, including 95% CIs, by race, ethnicity, sex, and malignancy subtypes., Results: A total of 41 (67.2%) trials leading to drug approval reported data on race and 20 (48.8%) on ethnicity. These trials included 13,731 patients, of whom 11,209 (81.6%) were White. Among minorities, Asian-Pacific Islanders and Blacks had the highest representation in chronic myeloid leukemia, 147 (12.7%) and 61 (5.3%), and lowest in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 55 (3%) and 20 (1.1%), respectively. Proportions for Blacks, Native Americans, and Hispanics were significantly low, reflecting under-representation in trials compared with the proportion in the general population. Females were also under-represented in acute myeloid leukemia (44.7% v 60.5%, P < .0001), and males in MM (55.3% v 60.2%, P < .0001) and chronic myeloid leukemia (55.2% v 62.9%, P < .0001). The geographic distribution of trials showed inadequate regional and state participation compared with mortality for all malignancies except MM., Conclusion: There are significant demographic and geographic under-representation and imbalances in pivotal CTs leading to drug approvals for leukemias and MM compared with the population affected. These disparities need to be addressed to make results applicable to all relevant populations., Competing Interests: Jorge E. CortesConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Bio-Path Holdings Inc, Astellas Pharma, Takeda, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Menarini, Gilead Sciences, Centessa PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Sun Pharma (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Jazz Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AbbVie/Genentech (Inst), Actuate Therapeutics (Inst), Sellas Life Sciences (Inst), Bio-Path Holdings Inc (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Objectives: Recent studies have examined social needs (social determinants of health) among cancer survivors, but studies have not specifically focused on patients with leukemia or lymphoma. We examined food insecurity and other social needs among hematologic cancer survivors, including individuals who had completed primary therapy for leukemia, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma. A particular focus of the study was on the relationship between social needs and health-related quality of life., Methods: We conducted a postal survey of a multiethnic cohort of hematologic cancer survivors who reside in Augusta, GA, or the surrounding area and who had been treated at the Georgia Cancer Center., Results: A total of 53 patients with a history of hematologic cancer (leukemia, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma) completed the survey (10.6% response rate). The mean age was 62.6 years. The participants were diverse according to annual household income and employment status. About two-thirds were white and almost one-third were African American. Five of 52 participants (9.6%) experienced food insecurity. Patients with food insecurity had poorer HRQOL compared with those who were food secure (63.3 vs. 87.33, p = 0.0308). A similar pattern was seen for those who had difficulty paying utility bills, those who had housing insecurity, and those who had to go without health care because of a lack of transportation. Overall, there was a statistically significant inverse association between HRQOL and number of social needs (p = 0.004)., Conclusion: When caring for cancer survivors, social needs such as food insecurity and housing insecurity are important considerations for oncologists and primary care providers, especially when caring for patients with lower socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic minorities., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

The development of BCR::ABL1-targeting tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has improved the prognosis of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Although there are some common class-wide side effects, differences in safety profiles between TKIs allow physicians and patients to personalize treatment plans. Treatment selection depends on several factors, such as age, disease risk, comorbidities, and concomitant medications. In second- and later-line settings, response to previous TKIs and mutation analyses should also be used to guide TKI selection. Several strategies can be used to manage adverse events (AEs) that emerge during treatment, e.g., dose reductions/interruptions, monitoring, treatment of AEs, lifestyle modifications, prophylactic therapy, and other supportive care strategies. This review summarizes the safety profiles of the currently approved TKIs and how they impact treatment selection in the first- and later-line settings of CML, particularly regarding patient comorbidities and concomitant medications. Additionally, strategies to manage AEs of special interest with TKIs are reviewed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Jeffrey Lipton: served as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda; received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda; received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Incyte, Pfizer and Takeda. Tim H Brümmendorf: consultant for Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and received research support from Novartis and Pfizer. Carlo Gambacorti-Passerini: provides consultancy to Bristol-Myers Squibb and received honoraria and research support from Pfizer. Valentin Garcia-Gutiérrez: served as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Novartis and Pfizer; received research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Incyte. Michael Deininger: served as a paid consultant for Blueprint, Ariad, Blueprint Medicine, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galena Biopharma, Incyte, Novartis, Fusion Pharma, Sangamo and Pfizer; received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Novartis, SPARC, DisperSol, Pfizer and Blueprint. Jorge E Cortes: served as a consultant for Amphivena Therapeutics, Astellas Pharma, Bio-Path Holdings Inc, BiolineRx, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, and Takeda, and received research funding from Astellas Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Immunogen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, Takeda, Tolero Pharmaceuticals and Tovagene., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: There has been increasing concern over the high cost of oncology care and its long-lasting impact on the well-being of cancer survivors., Methods: We examined characteristics of impoverished cancer survivors in the United States, including their physical and mental health, using data from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. We used binomial logistic regressions for binary outcome variables, and negative binomial regressions for count variables, to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and incident rate ratios (IRRs) of the physical, mental, and socioeconomic-related health factors for low-income cancer survivors versus higher-income survivors. We compared the ORs and IRRs for low-income cancer survivors with those of higher income cancer survivors., Results: There was a two-fold increased odds (adjusted OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.86 to 2.91) of having fair/poor health for low-income cancer survivors compared with higher-income cancer survivors. There was an almost two-fold increased odds (adjusted OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.50 to 2.59) of not being able to see a doctor among low-income cancer survivors, and a 42% lower odds (adjusted OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.86) of having health insurance coverage for low-income cancer survivors compared with higher-income survivors. Incidence rate ratios for physical (IRR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.75) and mental (IRR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.86) unhealthy days were significantly higher among low-income cancer survivors compared with nonpoor cancer survivors., Conclusion: Strategies are available to ameliorate financial hardship at multiple levels. Implementation of these strategies is urgently needed.

CPX-351 (Europe: Vyxeos ® liposomal; United States: Vyxeos ® ) is a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio. In a phase 3 study in older adults with newly diagnosed, high-risk/secondary AML, CPX-351 improved the remission frequency, overall survival, and post-transplant survival versus 7 + 3. This post hoc analysis evaluated the final 5-year follow-up outcomes according to the European LeukemiaNet 2017 risk classification. CPX-351-treated patients had a higher remission frequency (adverse risk: 41% vs 26%; intermediate risk: 58% vs 39%) and longer median overall survival (adverse risk: 7.59 vs 5.52 months; intermediate risk: 11.86 vs 7.75 months) and post-transplant survival (adverse risk: 43.14 vs 7.08 months; intermediate risk: not reached vs 13.57 months) versus 7 + 3, with outcomes generally poorer among patients with adverse-risk AML. The safety profile of CPX-351 among patients with adverse-risk or intermediate-risk AML was consistent with that of the overall study population. Early mortality was lower, and hospitalization length of stay per patient-year was shorter with CPX-351 versus 7 + 3 within the adverse-risk and intermediate-risk subgroups. The favorable outcomes observed with CPX-351 in this post hoc analysis are consistent with results for the overall study population and further support the use of CPX-351 in these patients.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01696084., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias was last updated in 2016 within a collaboration between the World Health Organization (WHO), the Society for Hematopathology, and the European Association for Haematopathology. This collaboration was primarily based on input from a clinical advisory committees (CACs) composed of pathologists, hematologists, oncologists, geneticists, and bioinformaticians from around the world. The recent advances in our understanding of the biology of hematologic malignancies, the experience with the use of the 2016 WHO classification in clinical practice, and the results of clinical trials have indicated the need for further revising and updating the classification. As a continuation of this CAC-based process, the authors, a group with expertise in the clinical, pathologic, and genetic aspects of these disorders, developed the International Consensus Classification (ICC) of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias. Using a multiparameter approach, the main objective of the consensus process was the definition of real disease entities, including the introduction of new entities and refined criteria for existing diagnostic categories, based on accumulated data. The ICC is aimed at facilitating diagnosis and prognostication of these neoplasms, improving treatment of affected patients, and allowing the design of innovative clinical trials.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have vastly improved long-term outcomes for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). After imatinib (a first-generation TKI), second- and third-generation TKIs were developed. With five TKIs (imatinib, dasatinib, bosutinib, nilotinib, and ponatinib) targeting BCR::ABL approved in most countries, and with the recent approval of asciminib in the USA, treatment decisions are complex and require assessment of patient-specific factors. Optimal treatment strategies for CML continue to evolve, with an increased focus on achieving deep molecular responses. Using clinically relevant case studies developed by the authors of this review, we discuss three major scenarios from the perspective of international experts. Firstly, this review explores patient-specific characteristics that affect decision-making between first- and second-generation TKIs upon initial diagnosis of CML, including patient comorbidities. Secondly, a thorough assessment of therapeutic options in the event of first-line treatment failure (as defined by National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European LeukemiaNet guidelines) is discussed along with real-world considerations for monitoring optimal responses to TKI therapy. Thirdly, this review illustrates the considerations and importance of achieving treatment-free remission as a treatment goal. Due to the timing of the writing, this review addresses global challenges commonly faced by hematologists treating patients with CML during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lastly, as new treatment approaches continue to be explored in CML, this review also discusses the advent of newer therapies such as asciminib. This article may be a useful reference for physicians treating patients with CML with second-generation TKIs and, as it is focused on the physicians' international and personal experiences, may give insight into alternative approaches not previously considered., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

This analysis from the multicenter, open-label, phase 3 BFORE trial reports efficacy and safety of bosutinib in patients with newly diagnosed chronic phase (CP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) after five years' follow-up. Patients were randomized to 400-mg once-daily bosutinib (n = 268) or imatinib (n = 268; three untreated). At study completion, 59.7% of bosutinib- and 58.1% of imatinib-treated patients remained on study treatment. Median duration of treatment and time on study was 55 months in both groups. Cumulative major molecular response (MMR) rate by 5 years was higher with bosutinib versus imatinib (73.9% vs. 64.6%; odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.08-2.28]), as were cumulative MR 4 (58.2% vs. 48.1%; 1.50 [1.07-2.12]) and MR 4.5 (47.4% vs. 36.6%; 1.57 [1.11-2.22]) rates. Superior MR with bosutinib versus imatinib was consistent across Sokal risk groups, with greatest benefit seen in patients with high risk. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were consistent with 12-month data. After 5 years of follow-up there was an increase in the incidence of cardiac, effusion, renal, and vascular TEAEs in bosutinib- and imatinib-treated patients, but overall, no new safety signals were identified. These final results support 400-mg once-daily bosutinib as standard-of-care in patients with newly diagnosed CP CML.This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02130557., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Bosutinib has been investigated in multiple clinical trials globally, including Japan, for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). A pooled analysis of seven Pfizer-sponsored clinical trials evaluated the safety of bosutinib in Japanese (n = 138) vs non-Japanese (n = 1210) patients with CML. First-line bosutinib was administered in 54.3% vs 41.4% of patients, and second-line or later bosutinib in the remainder. Median treatment duration was 1.4 vs 2.3 years, and median relative dose intensity 78.1% vs 90.0%. Any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 100.0% vs 98.9% (grade ≥ 3: 81.9% vs 75.2%). In both groups, the most common TEAEs relevant to bosutinib were gastrointestinal (92.8% vs 84.7%), liver function (72.5% vs 34.8%), rash (63.8% vs 37.4%), and myelosuppression (55.1% vs 50.7%). TEAEs led to dose reduction in 65.2% vs 50.6%, dose interruption in 78.3% vs 68.8%, and permanent treatment discontinuation in 30.4% vs 25.4% of patients. The safety profile of bosutinib in Japanese patients was generally consistent with that in non-Japanese patients, despite a higher incidence of gastrointestinal, liver function, and rash events. TEAEs were largely manageable with dose modifications and supportive care in both groups. These data may help optimize TEAE management and outcomes in Japanese patients receiving bosutinib for CML. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02130557, NCT03128411, NCT00574873, NCT00261846, NCT01903733, NCT00811070, NCT02228382., (© 2022. Japanese Society of Hematology.)

The recommended starting dose of bosutinib is 500 mg/day for chronic-phase (CP) or accelerated-/blast-phase Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) resistant/intolerant to prior therapy. However, some patients may require dose reductions to manage the occurrences of adverse events (AEs). Bosutinib efficacy and safety were evaluated following dose reductions in a phase I/II study of Ph+ patients with CP CML resistant/intolerant to imatinib or imatinib plus dasatinib and/or nilotinib, and those with accelerated-/blast-phase CML or acute lymphoblastic leukemia after at least imatinib treatment. In all, 570 patients with ≥4 years' follow-up were included in this analysis. Among 144 patients who dose-reduced to bosutinib 400 mg/day (without reduction to 300 mg/day), 22 (15 %) had complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) before and after reduction, 40 (28 %) initially achieved CCyR after reduction, and 4 (3 %) only had CCyR before reduction. Among 95 patients who dose-reduced to bosutinib 300 mg/day, 23 (24 %) had CCyR before and after reduction, 13 (14 %) initially achieved CCyR after reduction, and 3 (3 %) only had CCyR before reduction. Results were similar to matched controls who remained on 500 mg/day, indicating dose reductions had not substantially affected efficacy. The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs was lower after dose reductions, particularly for gastrointestinal events. The incidence of hematologic toxicities generally was similar before and after dose reduction. The management of AEs with bosutinib through dose reduction can lead to improved/maintained efficacy and better tolerability; still, approximately half of patients on treatment at year 4 maintained a dose of ≥500 mg/day. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00261846., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) resistant/intolerant to ≥2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are at high risk of experiencing poor outcomes because of disease biology and inadequate efficacy and/or safety of current therapies. Asciminib, a first-in-class BCR-ABL1 inhibitor Specifically Targeting the ABL Myristoyl Pocket (STAMP), has the potential to overcome resistance/intolerance to approved TKIs. In this phase 3, open-label study, patients with CML-CP previously treated with ≥2 TKIs were randomized (2:1) to receive asciminib 40 mg twice daily vs bosutinib 500 mg once daily. Randomization was stratified by major cytogenetic response (MCyR) status at baseline. The primary objective was to compare the major molecular response (MMR) rate at week 24 for asciminib vs bosutinib. A total of 233 patients were randomized to asciminib (n = 157) or bosutinib (n = 76). Median follow-up was 14.9 months. The MMR rate at week 24 was 25.5% with asciminib and 13.2% with bosutinib. The difference in MMR rate between treatment arms, after adjusting for MCyR at baseline, was 12.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.19-22.30; 2-sided P = .029). Fewer grade ≥3 adverse events (50.6% vs 60.5%) and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (5.8% vs 21.1%) occurred with asciminib than with bosutinib. The study showed a superior efficacy of asciminib compared with that of bosutinib, together with a favorable safety profile. These results support the use of asciminib as a new therapy in patients with CML-CP who are resistant/intolerant to ≥2 prior TKIs. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03106779., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is upregulated in cluster of differentiation 34 (CD34) + bone marrow cells from patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Hypomethylating agent (HMA) treatment results in further increased expression of these immune checkpoints. We hypothesised that combining an anti-PD-1 antibody with HMAs may have efficacy in patients with MDS. To test this concept, we designed a phase II trial of the combination of azacitidine and pembrolizumab with two cohorts. In the 17 previously untreated patients, the overall response rate (ORR) was 76%, with a complete response (CR) rate of 18% and median overall survival (mOS) not reached after a median follow-up of 12·8 months. For the HMA-failure cohort (n = 20), the ORR was 25% and CR rate was 5%; with a median follow-up of 6·0 months, the mOS was 5·8 months. The most observed toxicities were pneumonia (32%), arthralgias (24%) and constipation (24%). Immune-related adverse events requiring corticosteroids were required in 43%. Overall, this phase II trial suggests that azacitidine and pembrolizumab is safe with manageable toxicities in patients with higher-risk MDS. This combined therapy may have anti-tumour activity in a subset of patients and merits further studies in the front-line setting., (© 2021 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jhmhp-20-68). SSC serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3-internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) mutation in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is associated with poor prognosis. We hypothesized that quizartinib, a selective and potent FLT3 inhibitor, with azacitidine (AZA) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) might improve the outcomes in patients with FLT3-ITD-mutated AML. In this open-label phase I/II trial, patients of any age receiving first-salvage treatment for FLT3-ITD AML or age >60 years with untreated myelodysplastic syndrome or AML were treated with quizartinib plus AZA or LDAC. Seventy-three patients were treated (34 frontline, 39 first-salvage). Among previously untreated patients, composite response (CRc) was achieved in 13/15 (87%, 8 CR, 4 Cri, 1 CRp) treated with quizartinib/AZA and 14/19 (74%, 1 CR, 8 CRi, 5 CRp) in quizartinib/LDAC. The median OS was 19.2 months for quizartinib/AZA and 8.5 months for quizartinib/LDAC cohort; RFS was 10.5 and 6.4 months, respectively. Among previously treated patients, 16 (64%) achieved CRc in quizartinib/AZA and 4 (29%) in quizartinib/LDAC. The median OS for patients treated with quizartinib/AZA and quizartinib/LDAC was 12.8 vs. 4 months, respectively. QTc prolongation grade 3 occurred in only 1 patient in each cohort. Quizartinib-based combinations, particularly with AZA, appear effective in both frontline and first-salvage for patients with FLT3-ITD-mutated AML and are well tolerated.

Background: Dasatinib monotherapy has demonstrated modest clinical activity in chronic myeloid leukemia in lymphoid blastic phase (CML-LBP). The outcome of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has dramatically improved with hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine sulfate, doxorubicin hydrochloride, and dexamethasone (hyper-CVAD) in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)., Methods: The authors reviewed 85 patients (23 with CML-LBP and 62 with newly diagnosed Ph-positive ALL) who received hyper-CVAD plus dasatinib., Results: In the CML-LBP cohort, 19 had prior chronic myeloid leukemia as chronic phase (n = 17; 74%), accelerated phase (n = 1; 4%), or myeloid blastic phase (n = 1; 4%); 4 (17%) presented with de novo CML-LBP. The BCR-ABL1 transcript was p210 in 22 patients (96%) and p190 in 1 patient (4%). In the Ph-positive ALL cohort, p210 and p190 transcripts were detected in 13 patients (21%) and 48 patients (77%), respectively. Patients with CML-LBP were less likely to achieve deep molecular remission than patients with Ph-positive ALL: the major molecular response (MMR) rates were 70% and 95%, respectively (P = .007), and the complete molecular response (CMR) rates were 55% and 74%, respectively (P = .16). Survival outcomes were similar for CML-LBP and Ph-positive ALL: the 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 59% and 48%, respectively (P = .97). Allogeneic stem cell transplantation was associated with a better outcome in CML-LBP (5-year OS rate, 88% vs 57%; P = .04). In Ph-positive ALL, the outcome was driven by deeper molecular remission: the 5-year OS rates were 63% and 25% with CMR and MMR, respectively (P = .002)., Conclusions: The outcome of CML-LBP has improved with hyper-CVAD plus dasatinib therapy with survival comparable to that of Ph-positive ALL. Further improvement may be achieved with the use of novel TKIs and targeted agents., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

Background: CPX-351 (United States: Vyxeos ® ; Europe: Vyxeos ® Liposomal), a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio, is approved by the US FDA and the EMA for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia or acute myeloid leukemia with myelodysplasia-related changes. In a pivotal phase 3 study that evaluated 309 patients aged 60 to 75 years with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary acute myeloid leukemia, CPX-351 significantly improved median overall survival versus conventional 7 + 3 chemotherapy (cytarabine continuous infusion for 7 days plus daunorubicin for 3 days), with a comparable safety profile. A Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms of disease or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis of the phase 3 study was performed to compare survival quality between patients receiving CPX-351 versus conventional 7 + 3 after 5 years of follow-up., Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 between December 20, 2012 and November 11, 2014 to receive induction with CPX-351 or 7 + 3. Survival time for each patient was partitioned into 3 health states: TOX (time with any grade 3 or 4 toxicity or prior to remission), TWiST (time in remission without relapse or grade 3 or 4 toxicity), and REL (time after relapse). Within each treatment arm, Q-TWiST was calculated by adding the mean time spent in each health state weighted by its respective quality-of-life, represented by health utility. The relative Q-TWiST gain, calculated as the difference in Q-TWiST between treatment arms divided by the mean survival of the 7 + 3 control arm, was determined in order to evaluate results in the context of other Q-TWiST analyses., Results: The relative Q-TWiST gain with CPX-351 versus 7 + 3 was 53.6% in the base case scenario and 39.8% among responding patients. Across various sensitivity analyses, the relative Q-TWiST gains for CPX-351 ranged from 48.0 to 57.6%, remaining well above the standard clinically important difference threshold of 15% for oncology., Conclusions: This post hoc analysis demonstrates that CPX-351 improved quality-adjusted survival, further supporting the clinical benefit in patients with newly diagnosed high-risk/secondary acute myeloid leukemia. Trial registration This trial was registered on September 28, 2012 at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01696084 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01696084 ) and is complete., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Daunorubicin and cytarabine are used as standard induction chemotherapy for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. CPX-351 is a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio. Primary analysis of the phase 3 trial in adults aged 60-75 years with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia provided support for approval of CPX-351 by the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency. We describe the prospectively planned final 5-year follow-up results., Methods: This randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial was done across 39 academic and regional cancer centres in the USA and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 60-75 years and had a pathological diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia according to WHO 2008 criteria, no previous induction therapy for acute myeloid leukaemia, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (stratified by age and acute myeloid leukaemia subtype) to receive up to two induction cycles of CPX-351 (100 units/m 2 administered as a 90-min intravenous infusion on days 1, 3, and 5; on days 1 and 3 for the second induction) or standard chemotherapy (cytarabine 100 mg/m 2 per day continuous intravenous infusion for 7 days plus intravenous daunorubicin 60 mg/m 2 on days 1, 2, and 3 [7+3]; cytarabine for 5 days and daunorubicin on days 1 and 2 for the second induction [5+2]). Patients with complete remission or complete remission with incomplete neutrophil or platelet recovery could receive up to tw cycles of consolidation therapy with CPX-351 (65 units/m 2 90-min infusion on days 1 and 3) or chemotherapy (5+2, same dosage as in the second induction cycle). The primary outcome was overall survival analysed in all randomly assigned patients. No additional adverse events were collected with long-term follow-up, except data for deaths. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01696084, and is complete., Findings: Between Dec 20, 2012, and Nov 11, 2014, 309 patients with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive CPX-351 (153 patients) or 7+3 (156 patients). At a median follow-up of 60·91 months (IQR 60·06-62·98) in the CPX-351 group and 59·93 months (59·73-60·50) in the 7+3 group, median overall survival was 9·33 months (95% CI 6·37-11·86) with CPX-351 and 5·95 months (4·99-7·75) with 7+3 (HR 0·70, 95% CI 0·55-0·91). 5-year overall survival was 18% (95% CI 12-25%) in the CPX-351 group and 8% (4-13%) in the 7+3 group. The most common cause of death in both groups was progressive leukaemia (70 [56%] of 124 deaths in the CPX-351 group and 74 [53%] of 140 deaths in the 7+3 group). Six (5%) of 124 deaths in the CPX-351 group and seven (5%) of 140 deaths in the 7+3 group were considered related to study treatment., Interpretation: After 5 years of follow-up, the improved overall survival with CPX-351 versus 7+3 was maintained, which supports the previous evidence that CPX-351 can contribute to long-term remission and improved overall survival in patients aged 60-75 years with newly diagnosed high-risk or secondary acute myeloid leukaemia., Funding: Jazz Pharmaceuticals., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JEL has received consulting fees from AbbVie, BerGenBio/DAVA Oncology, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, ElevateBio Management, Millennium Pharma/Takeda, and Novartis. GLU has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Agios, GlaxoSmithKline, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and Novartis, and received honoraria from Astellas Pharma. TLL has received institutional research funding from AbbVie, Aptevo, Astellas Pharma, Bio-Path Holdings, Celgene, Celyad, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mateon Therapeutics, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Prescient Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Tolero Pharmaceuticals, and Trovagene. EKR has served as a consultant for Celgene, Incyte, Novartis, and Pfizer; served on speakers bureaus for Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Incyte, and Novartis; received research funding from Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, NS Pharma, and Pfizer; and received travel support from Celgene and Novartis. RKS has served as a consultant for Sunesis Pharmaceuticals; received honoraria from Sunesis Pharmaceuticals; received research funding from Agios, Astellas Pharma, Bayer AG, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Ono Pharmaceuticals, and Sunesis Pharmaceuticals; and received travel support from Sunesis Pharmaceuticals. SAS has served as a consultant for AbbVie, ArcherDx, Astellas Pharma, Genentech, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Kite Pharma, Kura Oncology, and Novartis; and received research funding from Sunesis Pharmaceuticals. JEK participated in advisory boards for Amgen, Magellan, and Pfizer, and has served on the editorial board for UpToDate. GJS has received research funding from AbbVie, Agios, Actinium, Amgen, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, Constellation, Cyclacel, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, Delta-Fly, Forma, Fujifilm, Gamida, Genentech/Roche, Geron, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm, Kite Pharma, Mateon, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Regimmune, Samus, Sangamo, Tolero, and Trovagene; received consulting fees from Agios, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Novartis, and Ono Pharma; served on speakers bureaus for Agios, Amgen, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Incyte, Sanofi, and Stemline; provided expert testimony for Kaiser Permanente; and holds stock ownership and options in Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer. MJW has received research funding from Amgen, Leadiant, Merck, and Shire; participated in advisory committees for Daiichi Sankyo; and holds stock ownership in Reata Pharmaceuticals. DHR holds stock ownership in AbbVie and patents and royalties with the University of Rochester. SF is an employee of and holds stock ownership and options in Jazz Pharmaceuticals. JEC has received consulting fees from Astellas Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer; and research funding (to his institution) from Arog, Astellas Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Bosutinib is approved in the United States, Europe, Japan, and other countries for treatment of newly diagnosed chronic phase (CP) chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and CML resistant/intolerant to prior therapy. In the phase 3 BFORE trial (Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02130557), patients were randomized 1:1 to first-line bosutinib or imatinib 400 mg once daily. We examined efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of bosutinib vs imatinib and pharmacokinetics of bosutinib in the Asian (n = 33 vs 34) and non-Asian (n = 235 vs 234) subpopulations of BFORE followed for at least 24 months. At the data cutoff date, 72.7 vs 66.7% of Asian and 70.6 vs 66.4% of non-Asian patients remained on treatment. The major molecular response rate at 24 months favored bosutinib vs imatinib among Asian (63.6 vs 38.2%) and non-Asian (60.9 vs 52.6%) patients, as did the complete cytogenetic response rate by 24 months (86.7 vs 76.7%, 81.5 vs 76.3%). Treatment-emergent adverse events in both subpopulations were consistent with the primary BFORE results. Trough bosutinib concentration levels tended to be higher in Asian patients. Health-related quality of life was maintained after 12 months of bosutinib in both subpopulations. These results support bosutinib as a first-line treatment option in Asian patients with CP CML.

Background: The natural course of untreated chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is progression to an aggressive blast phase. Even in the current era of BCR-ABL1 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), the outcomes of blast phase CML remain poor with no consensus frontline treatment approach., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the response rates and survival outcomes of 104 consecutive patients with myeloid blast phase CML (CML-MBP) treated from 2000 to 2019 based on 4 different frontline treatment approaches: intensive chemotherapy (IC) + TKI (n = 20), hypomethylating agent (HMA) + TKI (n = 20), TKI alone (n = 56), or IC alone (n = 8). We also evaluated the impact of TKI selection and subsequent allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT) on patient outcomes., Results: Response rates were similar between patients treated with IC + TKI and HMA + TKI. Compared to treatment with TKI alone, treatment with IC/HMA + TKI resulted in a higher rate of complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (57.5% vs 33.9%, p < 0.05), a higher complete cytogenetic response rate (45% vs 10.7%, p < 0.001), and more patients proceeding to ASCT (32.5% vs 10.7%, p < 0.01). With a median follow-up of 6.7 years, long-term outcomes were similar between the IC + TKI and HMA + TKI groups. Combination therapy with IC/HMA + TKI was superior to therapy with TKI alone, including when analysis was limited to those treated with a 2nd/3rd-generation TKI. When using a 2nd/3rd-generation TKI, IC/HMA + TKI led to lower 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR; 44% vs 86%, p < 0.05) and superior 5-year event-free survival (EFS; 28% vs 0%, p < 0.05) and overall survival (OS; 34% vs 8%, p = 0.23) compared to TKI alone. Among patients who received IC/HMA + TKI, EFS and OS was superior for patients who received a 2nd/3rd generation TKI compared to those who received imatinib-based therapy. In a landmark analysis, 5-year OS was higher for patients who proceeded to ASCT (58% vs 22%, p = 0.12)., Conclusions: Compared to patients treated with TKI alone for CML-MBP, treatment with IC + TKI or HMA + TKI led to improved response rates, CIR, EFS, and OS, particularly for patients who received a 2nd/3rd-generation TKI. Combination therapy with IC + TKI or HMA + TKI, rather than a TKI alone, should be considered the optimal treatment strategy for patients with CML-MBP.

Purpose: Breast cancer survivors may experience worse social, physical, and emotional function compared to the general population, although symptoms often improve over time. Data on problems in living can help to improve interventions and supportive care for breast cancer survivors. Symptoms such as fatigue, pain, difficulties with sleep, and sexual problems may have an adverse effect on the quality of life of breast cancer survivors., Methods: We examined problems in living using data from a survey of 164 breast cancer survivors who had completed primary therapy for the disease., Results: A total of 164 women completed the study questions (response rate 16.4%). The mean age of the women was 67 years. Among all participants, 66.7% were white, 29.5% were African-American, and the remainder were of other races. Almost all of the symptoms were more likely to be reported by participants who were < 55 years of age. Other important correlates of symptoms included non-white race, marital status, and having a household income of less than $50,000 per year., Conclusion: The results of this study highlight the need for caregivers to emphasize screening for and discussion of symptoms, including sleep difficulties, fatigue, loss of strength, aches and pains, and muscle or joint stiffness. Of particular concern are younger survivors and those who are African American or low-income., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Introduction: Long-term follow-up (≥4 years) demonstrated a low incidence of cardiac and vascular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with bosutinib treatment. We evaluated cardiac, vascular, hypertension, and effusion TEAEs after ≥ 7 years of follow-up in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) leukemia., Methods: This retrospective analysis of a phase I/II study and its ongoing extension study included data from patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treated with bosutinib after resistance/intolerance to imatinib (CP2L) or to imatinib plus dasatinib and/or nilotinib (CP3L), and those with accelerated/blast phase CML or acute lymphoblastic leukemia after treatment with, at a minimum, imatinib (ADV)., Results: In all, 570 patients were treated with bosutinib; median treatment duration was 11.1 months (range: 0.03-133.1). The incidence of cardiac, vascular, hypertension, and effusion-related TEAEs was 10.9%, 8.8%, 9.1%, and 13.3%, respectively. Few patients had maximum grade 3-4 TEAEs (cardiac, 3.9%; vascular, 4.0%; hypertension, 3.0%; effusion, 4.6%). Grade 5 TEAEs occurred in the cardiac (0.7%) and vascular (1.8%) clusters only. In years 5-7, fewer than 5% of patients each year had newly occurring cardiac, vascular, hypertension, or effusion TEAEs. The exposure-adjusted TEAE rates (patients with TEAEs/total patient-year) pooled across CP2L, CP3L, and ADV cohorts were as follows: cardiac, 0.044; vascular, 0.035; hypertension, 0.038; and effusion, 0.056, of which, correspondingly, 0.9%, 1.2%, 0%, and 2.1% required treatment discontinuation., Conclusions: The incidence of cardiac, hypertension, vascular, and effusion events was low in patients with Ph+ CML resistant or intolerant to prior therapy who were treated with bosutinib., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: New drug combinations have led to significant improvements in remission rates for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, many patients with high-risk AML who respond to their initial treatment and are not candidates for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) will eventually relapse with poor outcomes., Methods: In this phase 2 trial, the efficacy of lenalidomide maintenance was evaluated in patients with high-risk AML who had achieved their first or second remission after induction chemotherapy and at least 1 consolidation cycle and who were not candidates for immediate ASCT. Lenalidomide was given orally at 10 to 20 mg daily on days 1 to 28 of a 28-day cycle for up to 24 cycles., Results: A total of 28 patients were enrolled in this study with a median age of 61 years (range, 24-87 years). The median number of cycles was 8 (range, 1-24 cycles). Ten patients (36%) completed 24 months of maintenance treatment. With a median follow-up of 22.5 months (range, 2.6-55 months), 12 patients (43%) relapsed after a median of 3 months (range, 0.7-23 months). The median duration of remission for all patients was 18.7 months (range, 0.7-55.1 months). The 2-year overall survival and relapse-free survival rates from the time of enrollment were 63% and 50%, respectively. Overall, lenalidomide was well tolerated; serious adverse events of grade 3 or 4, including rash (n = 5), thrombocytopenia (n = 4), neutropenia (n = 4), and fatigue (n = 2), were observed in 13 patients (46%)., Conclusions: Lenalidomide is a safe and feasible maintenance strategy in patients with high-risk AML who are not candidates for ASCT, and it has beneficial effects for patients with negative measurable residual disease., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Background: Many cancer survivors face financial difficulties that prevent them from receiving appropriate health care. Racial/ethnic disparities in receipt of health care have been reported among cancer survivors, but recent data for important racial/ethnic subgroups of the US population are lacking., Methods: To learn more about barriers to healthcare access faced by cancer survivors, we analyzed data from the NIH "All of Us" Research Program. Data were analyzed about demographic factors and other personal characteristics, personal medical history of cancer, healthcare utilization, and access to care., Results: As of November 2020, a total of 5426 participants had a history of cancer (excluding skin cancer). About 88.2% were non-Hispanic White; 3.9% were Black, African American, or African; 1.3% were Asian; 4.1% were Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish; and 1.2% reported more than one race. Just over one-half had an annual income of $75,000 or greater. The majority of the participants (71.7%) were college graduates or had an advanced degree. About 47.0%% had private health insurance, 41.0% had Medicare, 6.0% had Medicaid, and the remainder had military, Veterans Affairs, other insurance, or no health insurance. Frequently cited reasons for delayed care in the past 12 months were "had to pay out of pocket for some or all of the procedures," "deductible was too high/or could not afford the deductible," "couldn't afford the copay," "couldn't get time off work," and "were nervous about seeing a health care provider.", Discussion: A minority of cancer survivors who participated in the NIH "All of Us" Program had difficulty paying for health care in the past 12 months. Of particular concern are minorities such as African American and Hispanic cancer survivors along with those who are low income., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This analysis from the phase II BRIGHT AML 1003 trial reports the long-term efficacy and safety of glasdegib + low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The multicenter, open-label study randomized (2:1) patients to receive glasdegib + LDAC (de novo, n = 38; secondary acute myeloid leukemia, n = 40) or LDAC alone (de novo, n = 18; secondary acute myeloid leukemia, n = 20). At the time of analysis, 90% of patients had died, with the longest follow-up since randomization 36 months. The combination of glasdegib and LDAC conferred superior overall survival (OS) versus LDAC alone; hazard ratio (HR) 0.495; (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.325-0.752); p = 0.0004; median OS was 8.3 versus 4.3 months. Improvement in OS was consistent across cytogenetic risk groups. In a post-hoc subgroup analysis, a survival trend with glasdegib + LDAC was observed in patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (HR 0.720; 95% CI 0.395-1.312; p = 0.14; median OS 6.6 vs 4.3 months) and secondary acute myeloid leukemia (HR 0.287; 95% CI 0.151-0.548; p < 0.0001; median OS 9.1 vs 4.1 months). The incidence of adverse events in the glasdegib + LDAC arm decreased after 90 days' therapy: 83.7% versus 98.7% during the first 90 days. Glasdegib + LDAC versus LDAC alone continued to demonstrate superior OS in patients with acute myeloid leukemia; the clinical benefit with glasdegib + LDAC was particularly prominent in patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01546038.