Search

Introduction: We have previously reported underrepresentation of female faculty at senior academic ranks in hematology/oncology (H/O). In this analysis we aimed to investigate the influence of sex in attaining leadership positions amongst academic hematologists/oncologists in United States. Methods: Faculty members were identified at 146 H/O fellowship programs listed on fellowship and residency electronic interactive database (FREIDA.) Data was collected on demographics, academic rank and research output using Doximity and Scopus databases. We compared the unadjusted characteristics of men and women by using two-sided t-tests and χ2 tests where appropriate. In primary analysis, logistic regression models were used to evaluate sex differences on probability of having full professorship (versus assistant and associate professorship) and of achieving leadership positions including division chief, Program Director (PD) and Associate Program Director (APD). Adjusted models included the following variables: clinical experience in years, number of publications, h-index, appointment at top 20 hospital, clinical trial investigator status and National Institutes of Health funding. Stratified analysis was performed adjusting for duration of clinical experience (≤15 vs >15 years) Results: Fewer women were full Professors (21.9% vs 78.1%), division chiefs (16.7% vs 83.3%), and PDs (30.5% vs 69.5) but the number was similar for Associate Program Directors (47.1% vs 52.9%). In a univariate unadjusted model, women were less likely to be full professors compared to men (OR 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31-0.48; P15 years) found no significant sex differences in attaining leadership position (Table) Conclusion: We found that women are underrepresented at higher academic ranks and in leadership positions in hematology/oncology, but that sex is not a significant negative predictor to women obtaining leadership positions after correcting for traditional predictors of academic success. However, "non-traditional" and therefore less measurable and analyzable factors such as networking, mentorship, sponsorship, gender bias, balancing work and home responsibilities and many others may contribute and should be further investigated. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor and lenalidomide (Len), an immunomodulatory drug are the backbone of established treatment regimens for newly diagnosed MM. Patients with dual-refractory (refractory to both bortezomib and lenalidomide) disease have a poor prognosis with overall survival estimated to be less than one year. Pomalidomide (Pom) has distinct anticancer, antiangiogenic and immunomodulatory properties and has demonstrated synergistic antiproliferative activity in combination regimens. The aim of our study is to compare different Pom based regimens to identify the most effective regimen for relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane library, Web of Science, Embase and AdisInsight databases on 03/29/2018 which identified a total of 1374 studies. We included phase II/III clinical trials on pomalidomide based regimens that have clearly documented efficacy outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis (CMA) Version 3. We used the Cochrane Q statistics (p0.05 or I2 >50%). Studies were classified into subgroups according to the therapeutic regimen: dual and triplet combinations. A separate stratified analysis of triplet regimens based on type of regimen was also performed. Results A total of 35 studies (n = 4623 patients) were included. The most commonly studied regimen was Pom + LoDex (Low dose dexamethasone) with a total of 16 studies on this regimen. All patients included in our study had ≥ 2 prior lines of therapy. Mean number of prior lines of therapy was 6. Most patients were lenalidomide refractory, with 10 patient cohorts of 100% refractoriness and 8 cohorts of ≥ 90% refractoriness. Pooled analysis showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 47.1% across all Pom regimens including both doublet and triplet regimens. An I2 value of 87.3 was found, indicating high heterogeneity across all Pom regimens. With Pom-LoDex, pooled ORR was found to be 35.7% and mean OS 14.37 months. With triplet regimens, pooled ORR was found to be 61.9%. In a separate stratified analysis of triplet regimens based on type of regimen, pooled ORRs with few selected regimens were as follows; Bort-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 83.5%, mean PFS 15.7 months [mos]), CFZ-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 77.1%, mean PFS 15.3 mos), Pom-LoDex-bendamustine (pooled ORR 74.2%), Pom-Dex-daratumumab (pooled ORR 64.5%), Pom-LoDex-cyclophosphamide (pooled ORR 59.4%, mean PFS 9.5 mos), Pom-LoDex-doxorubicin (pooled ORR 32%). Most frequently reported adverse event with Pom based regimens was myelosuppression. Mean incidences of grade ≥3 hematologic adverse events were neutropenia (47.6%), anemia (26.5%), and thrombocytopenia (20.8%). Mean incidences of grade ≥3 non-hematologic adverse events were infections (29.1%), pneumonia (13.8%) and fatigue (10%). Most of the studies used pomalidomide 4mg daily dosing. Lacy et al. suggested no advantage of 4mg pomalidomide over 2 mg daily dosing. Conclusion From results of pooled analysis, we can infer that triplet combinations of Pom yield almost double response rates (pooled ORR 61.9%) when compared to dual combination of Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 35.7%). Among three drug combinations, Bort-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 83.5%) and CFZ-Pom-LoDex (pooled ORR 77.1%) seem to produce better outcomes. Our study provides useful insight into relative efficacy of various Pom regimens for treatment of RRMM patients. Several trials involving various MoAbs like nivolumab, daratumumab, elotuzumab, isatuximab and pembrolizumab in combination with Pom-LoDex are currently ongoing. Pomalidomide has an acceptable safety profile. Most common treatment emergent adverse events were myelotoxicity and infections that can be effectively managed with supportive care and dose modifications. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

National Trends in Leukemia Related Emergency Department Visits, Health Care Burden and Disposition Rate in the United States, 2010-2014. Background: Recently emergency department (ED) utilization has been increasing for the management of acute conditions. Utilization of ED healthcare services by hematology and oncology patients have been documented previously. Cancer patients frequently visit the EDs with acute symptoms, that may require further assessment, management, and even hospitalization. Whether the incidence of leukemia related ED visits has altered is unknown. The aim of this study was to analyze the trend of leukemia related ED visits, healthcare cost associated with the visit and the discharge disposition from ED. Methods: We utilized Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) dataset for this study. NEDS is a part of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) database and contains the information of more than 950 United States (US) hospitals that is weighted to the national estimates. We used five years of data from 2010 to 2014 to examine the trends in prevalence and rates of ED visits, cost, and disposition (such as admission, discharge and death in ED). We defined patients with leukemia (acute myeloid, chronic myeloid, acute lymphocytic, and chronic lymphocytic leukemias) by using the international classification of disease, 9th revision, clinical modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. Cochrane-Armitage test was used to assess the trend of leukemia ER visits over five years. We used estimated US census population to calculate the rate of leukemia related ED visits. Furthermore, we assessed the predictors of hospital admission by using multivariable logistic regression model. Results: Between 2010 to 2014, a nationally weighted estimate of 771,510 patients visited ED with leukemia. The frequency of leukemia related ED visits increased 21.7% from 138,038 to 167,935 during this period that accounted for 0.12% of all ED visits. The rate of leukemia related ED visits increased 20.5% from 44 to 53 per 100,000 census population, which was statistically significant (p=0.04) on a trend test. The total national cost of leukemia related visit increased by 81% from $544 million in 2010 to $984 million in 2014 (p-value0.05). In an adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis, increasing age (OR 1.02 95% CI 1.024, 1.027), male gender (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.114, 1.188), patient location in metropolitan area (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.88, 2.22) and northeast location (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03, 1.32) were found to be significantly associated with the higher odds of in hospital admission following leukemia related ED visits. While few other variables like residents of higher income quartile and those holding Medicaid, insurance were also found to be positively associated with the hospitalization but were not statistically significant (OR>1.00, p>0.05). Conclusions: There is an increasing trend of leukemia related ED utilization and associated total and mean/median costs over time, while the rate of hospitalization for leukemia associated visit from ED have decreased. Oncology providers need to plan care accordingly to reduce ER visits and hospital admission for patients with leukemia. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Multiple myeloma is comparatively uncommon cancer, but among blood malignancies it is still the second most common cancer after non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Patients with complications of multiple myeloma (MM) frequently present to the emergency department. There is a lack of data about the health care burden and trends of utilization of emergency department services by MM patients. The objective of this study is to investigate the recent trends in resource utilization in the emergency departments for MM. Furthermore, we aimed to look for the demographic characteristics associated with the subsequent hospitalization of MM patients. We hypothesized that there has been an increase in the utilization of emergency department services for the management of MM patients in recent years. We further hypothesized that subsequent hospitalization rate may be decreasing with the availability of more efficacious and potentially less toxic drugs. Methods: For this study we obtained the data from United States National Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) years 2010-2014. For categorical variables, frequencies and proportions were generated and statistical significance was tested using a chi-squared test. Rate of myeloma associated emergency department visits were estimated by using US census population. Patients and hospital characteristics were entered in univariate analysis to predict in-patient admissions from the ED. Multivariable logistic regression was used to predict in-patient admissions for the variables that were found statistically significant in univariate analysis. All tests were two-sided with the statistical significance set at p < 0.05. All analyses were conducted using STATA 14.2v and no missing data was imputed. Results: Between 2010 to 2014, approximately 443,214 patients visited emergency departments (ED) with the diagnosis of MM, that accounted for 0.06 % of all emergency department visits. There was an absolute increase of 22% in MM related visits from 80,466 in 2010 to 98,279 in 2014. While the rate of emergency department service utilization by myeloma patient increased significantly by 19% (p=0.04). Overall 73% of myeloma related visits resulted in hospitalization, but over the study period trend of hospitalization decreased. The percentage of patients treated and discharged to home increased from 23% to 29% between 2010 to 2014. Total charges associated with myeloma related visits increased significantly from $315 million to $626 million during 2010 to 2014, with an annual increase in the rate (19.26%: p Conclusion: Multiple myeloma related emergency department service utilization and total charges are increasing over the observed time limit. While the incidence of hospitalization from emergency department is decreasing overtime. These findings can be explained on the basis of few facts. MM patients are living longer with the availability of newer drugs but remain uncured. Most patients will face relapse after the initial disease control, at which point they may need to utilize ED services more frequently. As better oral or intravenous drugs are available through oncology out-patient offices, limited MM drug choices are available in the hospital, majority of MM patients are discharged sooner from the hospitals resulting in reduced hospital admission rates as well as shorter hospital stay. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Elotuzumab (elo) is a humanized monoclonal antibody, which has been approved by the FDA for use in combination with lenalidomide (lena) and dexamethasone (dexa) in patients (pts) with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Elotuzumab is effective as a single agent, as well as in combination for multiple myeloma treatments, supporting the use of elo in pts with RRMM and newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) pts. Method: After review of literature using database searches was done on 6/27/18 (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Clinical Trials.gov), 9 prospective and 1 retrospective study with 1128 enrolled pts met the inclusion criteria to date in RRMM and 2 clinical trials including 123 pts in NDMM (Table 1). CMA software v.3 was used for meta-analysis. A random-effect model was applied. Result: Regimens used in RRMM: Based on pooled analysis (95% CI), an overall response rate (ORR) of 66% (54-76.2) was calculated in 685 evaluable pts treated with elo based regimens in RRMM (Figure 1). Most common grade (G) ≥ 3 hematological adverse events (HAE) and non-hematological adverse events (NHAE) based on regimen were calculated using pooled analysis in RRMM pts (Table 2). Anemia was noted in 12.1% ( 7.7-18.6) in 559 pts, while neutropenia in 14.5% (7.5-26.4) out of 591 pts and thrombocytopenia (tcp) in 11.9% (7.9-17.4) in 198 evaluable pts. Diarrhea 5.5% (3.6-8.3), pyrexia 2.4% (1.5-4), peripheral neuropathy (PN) 8.4% (3.8-17.8) were measured in 626, 668 and 143 pts respectively. Elotuzumab as monotherapy: 1 study (n=34) evaluated the efficacy of elo as single agent in RRMM. The median age, time from diagnosis and number of prior therapies were 64.5 years (y) (46-87), 4.4 y (0.9-12.8) and 4.5 y (2-10) respectively. It produced an ORR of 1.4% (0.1-19.1 95% CI) in 34 evaluable pts. Adverse events recorded were pyrexia and fatigue in 17.6% and 8.8% pts respectively. Elotuzumab in two drug regimen: In RRMM, 2 clinical trials (n=49) evaluated the efficacy (95% CI) of elo, ORR of 25% (4.1-72.3) was calculated. The best PFS (progression free survival) produced was in combination of elo 20 mg with bortezumib (bort) 1.3mg/m2 of 9.46 months as compared to 1.8 months when elo10mg/kg + dexamethasone (dexa) 28mg was used. In our analysis for safety, common G≥ 3 HAE calculated were, thrombocytopenia 8.7% (3.3-21.1) n=49, neutropenia 10.7 % (3.5-28.4) n=28 pts and anemia 7.1% (1.8-24.5) n=28 pts. NHAE included diarrhea 1.7% (0.1-22.3), PN 10.7% (3.5-28.4), pyrexia 1.7% (0.1-22.3) in 28 evaluable pts each. Elotuzumab in three drug regimen: In RRMM, 10 clinical trials including 602 pts evaluated the efficacy of elo as a part of triple drug regimen, producing an ORR of 72.2% (54-76.2). The best results were produced with the combination of elo 10-20mg/kg + lenalidomide (lena) 25mg + dexa 40mg producing a PFS of 32.2 mo and 28.62 mo in its phase I and II cohorts respectively. Based on pooled analysis (95% CI) common HAE calculated were neutropenia 17.5% (7.6-35.4) in n=563, thrombocytopenia 12.7% (8.2-19.4) in n=149 and anemia 13% (8-20.5) in n=531 pts. Common G ≥ 3 NHAE estimated were diarrhea 5.7% (3.7-8.6), PN 6.6% (2-19.2), pyrexia 2.5% (1.5-4.1) in 598, 115 and 640 pts respectively. Elotuzumab based regimen in NDMM: A currently ongoing clinical trial NCT02272803 has produced promising results in NDMM pts. As a part of three drug regimen with dose of elo 10mg/kg-20mg/kg, lena 25mg, dexa 20mg in 40 pts produced an ORR of 87.5% (73.2-95.8) versus control group of lena 25mg plus dexa 40mg in 42 pts with an ORR of 73.8% (58-86.1). The PFS rate recorded at 1 year was 93% (79-98%) and 91% (73-97%) respectively. The HAE G ≥ 3 included, neutropenia 18% and leukopenia 15%. In another study with 41 pts, elo was used in combination with lena, bort and dexa producing an ORR of 100% and greater than grade 3 adverse events including Tcp 15%, PN 2%. Conclusion: Results produced in our study suggest that elotuzumab is highly effective when used in pts with RRMM and NDMM. Combination regimens for elo produces an ORR ranging from 79-83% with elo + lena+ dexa, proving that the best results were produced by three drug regimens. Large prospective studies are required to evaluate efficacy and safety of elotuzumab in combination therapies. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Background - Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in elderly patients (>65 years) is associated with poor prognosis with median overall survival (mOS) of 6 months. Hypomethylating agents (Azacytidine (Aza) and Decitabine) are used in elderly patients who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy. Aza has resulted in complete remission/complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery (CR/CRi) of 18-27.8% and mOS of 10.4-24.5 months. Decitabine resulted in CR/CRi of 18-47% and mOS of 7.7-8 months. We conducted a systemic review to assess survival benefit of novel combination drug regimens (CDR) involving hypomethylating agent (HMA) in elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML. Methods - Comprehensive literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase and Cochrane database. We included phase I/II studies only that used CDR involving HMA. Results - Initial database search (since inception) lead to 975 studies. After exclusion (duplicates, case reports, relapsed/refractory AML) final analysis included 17 studies(n=540) Ten phase I/II CDR studies involving Aza (n=334) were included. The various drugs used in combination included valproic acid/all trans retinoic acid (n= 42 ,CR/CRi=26.2% mOS= 18.1 m), thalidomide (n= 14,CR/CRi= 29%, mOS= 13.2 m ), gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) (n= 142,CR/CRi = 35-44%, mOS= 11 m), lenalidomide (n= 45,CR/CRi=28-44% , mOS= 3-8.2 m), panobinostat (n=38,CR/CRi=10-22.4%, mOS= 8 m), midostaurin (n=12,CR/CRi=25%, mOS=6 m) , entinostat (n=18 ,CR/CRi=0% ,mOS= 6 m ), Seven phase I/II CDR studies(n=206) involving decitabine were included. Drugs used in combination included low dose cytarabine and aclarubicin (n= 85 ,CR/CRi = 64.7% , mOS= 10-12 m ), tosedostat (n=17 ,CR/CRi= 59% mOS= 11.5 m ), bexarotene(n= 4 ,CR/CRi= 0% mOS= 9.2 m), valproic acid(n= 62 ,CR/CRi= 9% mOS= 7.4m) , GO (n= 40,CR/CRi= 45% , mOS= 7m ),bortezomib (n= 10,CR/CRi= 50% ), vorinostat(n = 31,CR/CRi= 30%). Seven studies reported outcomes for patients with adverse cytogenetics separately. Of these, Aza with lenalidomide (n= 11) had a mOS of 9.5 months and with panobinostat (n=12) the overall response rate was 25% and mOS of 7 months. Similarly, decitabine with vorinostat (n = 8) and tosedostat(n =12) resulted in CR/CRi of 25% and 43% respectively. Long term outcomes for these CDR with decitabine were not reported. In two additional studies, valproic acid/all trans retinoic acid given with AZA and low dose cytarabine & aclarubicin with decitabine(p=0.023) showed poor outcome through multivariable cox model analysis. Five studies reported response rates for subgroup of patients with secondary AML using HMA. Of these, Aza with lenalidomide (n= 16) had a CR/CRi = 27% with median response duration of 21.3 weeks, a CR/CRi of 0% with entinostat (n= 18) and CR/CRi of 22% with thalidomide(n=9). Decitabine given with tosadostat (n= 10) had CR/CRi of 60% and with bortezomib(n=3) the CR/CRi was 66%. The long term outcomes were not reported for these patients. Conclusion - Novel combinations involving Aza with valproic acid/all trans retinoic acid, thalidomide, or GO showed similar CR/CRi and mOS compared to Aza alone. Tosedostat, low dose cytarabine, and aclarubicin given in combination with decitabine showed best results with superior CR/CRi and mOS compared to decitabine alone. Bexarotene with decitabine also improved mOS over decitabine alone despite lower CR/CRi. In patients with adverse cytogenetics, Aza with lenalidomide or panobinostat showed superior CR/CRi and mOS. Decitabine given with vorinostat and tosedostat also showed superior CR/CRi. In patients with secondary AML, Aza in combination with lenalidomide or thalidomide and decitabine with tosedostat or bortezomib showed superior CR/CRi. These CDR for patients with adverse cytogenetics and secondary AML need further testing in studies designed with this specific patient population in which long term outcomes are also measured. These CDR need to be evaluated in large, randomized, prospective studies to assess definitive benefit. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.