Search

Pretransplantation nutritional status may impact outcome after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Various simple screening tools have been developed and used to identify patients at risk of malnutrition; however, how best to use these screening tools is unclear, and their accuracy for the prediction of adverse outcomes is unknown. To investigate how these different measures contribute to outcome prediction, we examined a large cohort of adults with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) who underwent allogeneic HCT in first or second remission at our institution between April 2006 and May 2021. We assessed the prognostic role of the Nutrition Risk Index (NRI), which combines weight loss and serum albumin, in 970 adults with AML in first or second remission who had usual body weight information available at AML diagnosis or relapse and before HCT. A low NRI at the time of conditioning for HCT was associated with higher nonrelapse mortality (hazard ratio [HR], .97; 95% confidence interval [CI], .95 to .98; P < .001) and relapse risk (HR, .98; 95% CI, .96 to .99; P < .001) and decreased relapse-free survival (HR, .97; 95% CI, .96 to .98; P < .001) and overall survival (HR, .97; 95% CI, .96 to .98; P < .001), as was a low pre-HCT serum albumin level. After multivariable adjustment, NRI, but not weight loss alone, was associated with outcome. The predictive ability of NRI was overall relatively low and comparable to that of serum albumin, with a C-statistic not exceeding .59. Taken together, our data indicate that pre-HCT level of serum albumin, an acute-phase protein recognized to more accurately reflect the severity of the inflammatory response compared with poor nutritional status, but not weight loss, is independently associated with post-HCT outcome in patients with AML. © 2022 American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc., (Copyright © 2022 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In August 2018, the US FDA granted accelerated approval for nivolumab in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) that has progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy and at least one other line of therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab vs. usual care as third-line (3 L) therapy for patients with recurrent SCLC (rSCLC) from the health payer perspective. Given the potential for a meaningful fraction of treated patients to achieve long-term response to nivolumab, we also assessed the impact of using mixture cure modeling (MCM) vs. parametric survival modeling on survival estimates and cost-effectiveness from the US Medicare payer perspective., Methods: We created a partitioned survival decision model to assess the cost-effectiveness of 3 L nivolumab vs. usual care in rSCLC, based on observed US treatment patterns. Using this approach, we assessed the impact of extrapolating long-term survival from the CheckMate 032 trial, using both MCM and standard parametric curve fits. Nivolumab survival, resource use, and Grade 3/4 adverse event rates were derived from CheckMate 032. Usual care survival, resource use, and costs were derived from an analysis of patients receiving 3 L treatment for rSCLC in the SEER-Medicare registry. We applied 2020 Wholesale Acquisition Cost for drugs and 2020 CMS reimbursement for procedures. Utilities were derived from the literature. We estimated life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs over a lifetime horizon., Results: MCM and parametric survival model extrapolations resulted in 0.43 versus 0.38 more LYs, 0.34 versus 0.30 more QALYs, and $69,308 versus $61,336 more expenditure for nivolumab vs. usual care, respectively. The costs per QALY gained using mixture cure versus parametric survival modeling were $204,386 and $207,431, respectively., Conclusions: Mixture cure modeling was equivalent compared to parametric modeling in estimating the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab-based therapy due to the small fraction of patients achieving a long-term response with nivolumab (12.9%).

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

The preferred post-remission therapy for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR1) remains uncertain. In this retrospective, multicenter study, we compared the outcomes for older AML patients (age 60-77 years) receiving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) (n = 431) with those treated on prospective National Clinical Trials Network induction and nontransplantation chemotherapy (CT) consolidation trials (n = 211). AlloHCT patients were younger (median age: 64.2 versus 67.9 years, p < 0.001), but more frequently had high-risk AML (high WBC, secondary AML, and unfavorable cytogenetics). Overall survival (OS) was worse in alloHCT during the first 9 months after CR1 (HR = 1.52, p = 0.02), but was significantly better thereafter (HR = 0.53, p < 0.0001) relative to CT. Treatment-related mortality (TRM) following HCT was worse in the first 9 months (HR = 2.8, 95% CI: 1.5-5.2, p = 0.0009), while post-HCT relapse was significantly less frequent beyond 9 months (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.29-0.61, p < 0.0001). Despite higher early TRM, alloHCT recipients had superior long-term OS [29% (24-34%) versus CT 13.8% (9-21%) at 5 years]. Although this is a retrospective analysis with potential biases, it indicates that alloHCT led to heightened early risks from TRM, yet reduced relapse and superior long-term survival relative to CT in older AML patients in CR1.

Purpose: Younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) harboring NPM1 mutations without FLT3-internal tandem duplications (ITDs; NPM1-positive/FLT3-ITD-negative genotype) are classified as better risk; however, it remains uncertain whether this favorable classification can be applied to older patients with AML with this genotype. Therefore, we examined the impact of age on the prognostic significance of NPM1-positive/FLT3-ITD-negative status in older patients with AML., Patients and Methods: Patients with AML age ≥ 55 years treated with intensive chemotherapy as part of Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) and UK National Cancer Research Institute/Medical Research Council (NCRI/MRC) trials were evaluated. A comprehensive analysis first examined 156 patients treated in SWOG trials. Validation analyses then examined 1,258 patients treated in MRC/NCRI trials. Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to determine the impact of age on the prognostic significance of NPM1 mutations, FLT3-ITDs, and the NPM1-positive/FLT3-ITD-negative genotype., Results: Patients with AML age 55 to 65 years with NPM1-positive/FLT3-ITD-negative genotype treated in SWOG trials had a significantly improved 2-year overall survival (OS) as compared with those without this genotype (70% v 32%; P < .001). Moreover, patients age 55 to 65 years with NPM1-positive/FLT3-ITD-negative genotype had a significantly improved 2-year OS as compared with those age > 65 years with this genotype (70% v 27%; P < .001); any potential survival benefit of this genotype in patients age > 65 years was marginal (27% v 16%; P = .33). In multivariable analysis, NPM1-positive/FLT3-ITD-negative genotype remained independently associated with an improved OS in patients age 55 to 65 years (P = .002) but not in those age > 65 years (P = .82). These results were confirmed in validation analyses examining the NCRI/MRC patients., Conclusion: NPM1-positive/FLT3-ITD-negative genotype remains a relatively favorable prognostic factor for patients with AML age 55 to 65 years but not in those age > 65 years., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)