Search

Background Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be more susceptible to COVID-19 related poor outcomes, including thrombosis and death, due to the advanced age, the presence of comorbidities, and the disease and treatment-related immune deficiency. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in patients with CLL affected by severe COVID-19. Methods This is a retrospective multicenter study conducted by ERIC, the European Research Initiative on CLL, including patients from 79 centers across 22 countries. Data collection was conducted between April and May 2021. The COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed by the real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay for SARS-CoV-2 on nasal or pharyngeal swabs. Severe cases of COVID-19 were defined by hospitalization and the need of oxygen or admission into ICU. Development and type of thrombotic events, presence and severity of bleeding complications were reported during treatment for COVID-19. Bleeding events were classified using ISTH definition. STROBE recommendations were used in order to enhance reporting. Results A total of 793 patients from 79 centers were included in the study with 593 being hospitalized (74.8%). Among these, 511 were defined as having severe COVID: 162 were admitted to the ICU while 349 received oxygen supplementation outside the ICU. Most patients (90.5%) were receiving thromboprophylaxis. During COVID-19 treatment, 11.1% developed a thromboembolic event, while 5.0% experienced bleeding. Thrombosis developed in 21.6% of patients who were not receiving thromboprophylaxis, in contrast to 10.6% of patients who were on thromboprophylaxis. Bleeding episodes were more frequent in patients receiving intermediate/therapeutic versus prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) (8.1% vs. 3.8%, respectively) and in elderly. In multivariate analysis, peak D-dimer level and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio were poor prognostic factors for thrombosis occurrence (OR = 1.022, 95%CI 1.007‒1.038 and OR = 1.025, 95%CI 1.001‒1.051, respectively), while thromboprophylaxis use was protective (OR = 0.199, 95%CI 0.061‒0.645). Age and LMWH intermediate/therapeutic dose administration were prognostic factors in multivariate model for bleeding (OR = 1.062, 95%CI 1.017–1.109 and OR = 2.438, 95%CI 1.023–5.813, respectively). Conclusions Patients with CLL affected by severe COVID-19 are at a high risk of thrombosis if thromboprophylaxis is not used, but also at increased risk of bleeding under the LMWH intermediate/therapeutic dose administration.

Ibrutinib, a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, may have clinical benefit when administered in combination with bendamustine and rituximab and followed by rituximab maintenance therapy in older patients with untreated mantle-cell lymphoma.We randomly assigned patients 65 years of age or older to receive ibrutinib (560 mg, administered orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects) or placebo, plus six cycles of bendamustine (90 mg per square meter of body-surface area) and rituximab (375 mg per square meter). Patients with an objective response (complete or partial response) received rituximab maintenance therapy, administered every 8 weeks for up to 12 additional doses. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by the investigators. Overall survival and safety were also assessed.Among 523 patients, 261 were randomly assigned to receive ibrutinib and 262 to receive placebo. At a median follow-up of 84.7 months, the median progression-free survival was 80.6 months in the ibrutinib group and 52.9 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.96; P = 0.01). The percentage of patients with a complete response was 65.5% in the ibrutinib group and 57.6% in the placebo group (P = 0.06). Overall survival was similar in the two groups. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during treatment was 81.5% in the ibrutinib group and 77.3% in the placebo group.Ibrutinib treatment in combination with standard chemoimmunotherapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival. The safety profile of the combined therapy was consistent with the known profiles of the individual drugs. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development and Pharmacyclics; SHINE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776840.).

Patients with previous CD19 directed chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR T)-cell therapy have a prolonged vulnerability to viral infections. Coronavirus diseases 2019 (COVID-19) has a great impact and has previously been shown to cause high mortality in this population. Until now, real world data of the impact of vaccination and treatment on patients with COVID-19 after CD19 directed CAR T-cell therapy are lacking. Therefore, this multicenter retrospective study was conducted with data from the EPICOVIDEHA survey. Sixty-four patients were identified. The overall mortality caused by COVID-19 was 31%. Patients infected with the Omicron variant had a significantly lower risk of death due to COVID-19 compared to patients infected with previous variants (7% versus 58% (P=0.012)). Twenty-six patients were vaccinated at time of COVID-19 diagnosis. Two vaccinations showed marked but unsignificant reduction risk of COVID-19 caused mortality (33.3% versus 14.2% (P=0.379)).Also the course of disease appears milder with less frequent ICU admissions (39% versus 14% (P=0.054)) and shorter duration of hospitalization (7 versus 27.5 days (P=0.022)). Of the available treatment options, only monoclonal antibodies seemed to be effectively reducing mortality from 32% to zero (P=0.036). We conclude that survival rates of CAR T-cell recipients with COVID-19 improved over time and that the combination of prior vaccination and monoclonal antibody treatment significantly reduces their risk of death.

Supplementary Figure from Circulating Tumor and Immune Cells for Minimally Invasive Risk Stratification of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Supplementary Data from Circulating Tumor and Immune Cells for Minimally Invasive Risk Stratification of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Supplementary Table from Circulating Tumor and Immune Cells for Minimally Invasive Risk Stratification of Smoldering Multiple Myeloma

Purpose:Early intervention in smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) requires optimal risk stratification to avoid under- and overtreatment. We hypothesized that replacing bone marrow (BM) plasma cells (PC) for circulating tumor cells (CTC), and adding immune biomarkers in peripheral blood (PB) for the identification of patients at risk of progression due to lost immune surveillance, could improve the International Myeloma Working Group 20/2/20 model.Experimental Design:We report the outcomes of 150 patients with SMM enrolled in the iMMunocell study, in which serial assessment of tumor and immune cells in PB was performed every 6 months for a period of 3 years since enrollment.Results:Patients with >0.015% versus ≤0.015% CTCs at baseline had a median time-to-progression of 17 months versus not reached (HR, 4.9; P 20% BM PCs had no prognostic value in a multivariate analysis that included serum free light-chain ratio >20, >2 g/dL M-protein, and >0.015% CTCs. The 20/2/20 and 20/2/0.015 models yielded similar risk stratification (C-index of 0.76 and 0.78). The combination of the 20/2/0.015 model with an immune risk score based on the percentages of SLAN+ and SLAN− nonclassical monocytes, CD69+HLADR+ cytotoxic NK cells, and CD4+CXCR3+ stem central memory T cells, allowed patient’ stratification into low, intermediate-low, intermediate-high, and high-risk disease with 0%, 20%, 39%, and 73% rates of progression at 2 years.Conclusions:This study showed that CTCs outperform BM PCs for assessing tumor burden. Additional analysis in larger series are needed to define a consensus cutoff of CTCs for minimally invasive stratification of SMM.

This retrospective study evaluated 66 patients diagnosed with relapsed and/or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL) treated with ibrutinib in Spain in routine clinical practice. At diagnosis, patients had a median age of 64.5 years, 63.6% presented with intermediate/high sMIPI (simplified prognostic index for advanced-stage mantle cell lymphoma), 24.5% had the blastoid variant, and 55.6% had a Ki67 > 30%. Patients had received a median of 2 prior lines of therapy (range 1-2; min-max 1-7). Overall response rate was 63.5%, with 38.1% of patients achieving complete response (CR). With a median duration of ibrutinib exposure of 10.7 months (range 5.2-19.6; min-max 0.3-36), the median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 20 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.8-31.1] and 32 months (95% CI 22.6-41.3), respectively, and were not reached in patients achieving CR. No grade >= 3 cardiovascular toxicity or bleeding was reported. This study supports that treatment with ibrutinib leads to high response rates and favorable survival outcomes in patients with R/R MCL.

Interstitial 14q32 deletions involving IGH gene are infrequent events in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), affecting less than 5% of patients. To date, little is known about their clinical impact and molecular underpinnings, and its mutational landscape is currently unknown. In this work, a total of 871 CLLs were tested for the IGH break-apart probe, and 54 (6.2%) had a 300 kb deletion of 3′IGH (del-3′IGH CLLs), which contributed to a shorter time to first treatment (TFT). The mutational analysis by next-generation sequencing of 317 untreated CLLs (54 del-3′IGH and 263 as the control group) showed high mutational frequencies of NOTCH1 (30%), ATM (20%), genes involved in the RAS signaling pathway (BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and MAP2K1) (15%), and TRAF3 (13%) within del-3′IGH CLLs. Notably, the incidence of TRAF3 mutations was significantly higher in del-3′IGH CLLs than in the control group (p, Funding information: Universidad de Salamanca; Fundación Española de Hematología y Hemoterapia (FEHH); Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Grant/Award Number: CB16/12/00233; Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer (RTICC); “Fundación Memoria Don Samuel Solórzano Barruso”: FS/33–2020, Grant/Award Number: RD12/0036/0069; “Gerencia Regional de Salud, SACYL”:, Grant/Award Numbers: GRS2385/A/21, GRS2140/A/20; Consejería de Educación, Junta de Castilla y León, Grant/Award Number: SA118P20; European Regional Development Fund and Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Grant/Award Numbers: CD19/00222, FI19/00191; Spanish Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias, Grant/Award Numbers: PI21/00983, PI18/01500

Background Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), an alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone showed clinical activity and manageable safety in the phase 2 HORIZON study. We aimed to determine whether melflufen plus dexamethasone would provide a progression-free survival benefit compared with pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods In this randomised, open-label, head-to-head, phase 3 study (OCEAN), adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were recruited from 108 university hospitals, specialist hospitals, and community-based centres in 21 countries across Europe, North America, and Asia. Eligible patients had an ECOG performance status of 0–2; must have had relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma, refractory to lenalidomide (within 18 months of randomisation) and to the last line of therapy; and have received two to four previous lines of therapy (including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by age, number of previous lines of therapy, and International Staging System score, to either 28-day cycles of melflufen and dexamethasone (melflufen group) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone (pomalidomide group). All patients received dexamethasone 40 mg orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of each cycle. In the melflufen group, patients received melflufen 40 mg intravenously over 30 min on day 1 of each cycle and in the pomalidomide group, patients received pomalidomide 4 mg orally daily on days 1 to 21 of each cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by an independent review committee in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03151811, and is ongoing. Findings Between June 12, 2017, and Sept 3, 2020, 246 patients were randomly assigned to the melflufen group (median age 68 years [IQR 60–72]; 107 [43%] were female) and 249 to the pomalidomide group (median age 68 years [IQR 61–72]; 109 [44%] were female). 474 patients received at least one dose of study drug (melflufen group n=228; pomalidomide group n=246; safety population). Data cutoff was Feb 3, 2021. Median progression-free survival was 6·8 months (95% CI 5·0–8·5; 165 [67%] of 246 patients had an event) in the melflufen group and 4·9 months (4·2–5·7; 190 [76%] of 249 patients had an event) in the pomalidomide group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, [95% CI 0·64–0·98]; p=0·032), at a median follow-up of 15·5 months (IQR 9·4–22·8) in the melflufen group and 16·3 months (10·1–23·2) in the pomalidomide group. Median overall survival was 19·8 months (95% CI 15·1–25·6) at a median follow-up of 19·8 months (IQR 12·0–25·0) in the melflufen group and 25·0 months (95% CI 18·1–31·9) in the pomalidomide group at a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 11·8–23·7; HR 1·10 [95% CI 0·85–1·44]; p=0·47). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia (143 [63%] of 228 in the melflufen group vs 26 [11%] of 246 in the pomalidomide group), neutropenia (123 [54%] vs 102 [41%]), and anaemia (97 [43%] vs 44 [18%]). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 95 (42%) patients in the melflufen group and 113 (46%) in the pomalidomide group, the most common of which were pneumonia (13 [6%] vs 21 [9%]), COVID-19 pneumonia (11 [5%] vs nine [4%]), and thrombocytopenia (nine [4%] vs three [1%]). 27 [12%] patients in the melflufen group and 32 [13%] in the pomalidomide group had fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. Fatal treatment-emergent adverse events were considered possibly treatment related in two patients in the melflufen group (one with acute myeloid leukaemia, one with pancytopenia and acute cardiac failure) and four patients in the pomalidomide group (two patients with pneumonia, one with myelodysplastic syndromes, one with COVID-19 pneumonia). Interpretation Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed superior progression-free survival than pomalidomide plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma., Oncopeptides AB

Chemotherapy; Geriatric assessment; Toxicity Quimioterapia; Evaluación geriátrica; Toxicidad Quimioteràpia; Avaluació geriàtrica; Toxicitat Introduction The GAH (Geriatric Assessment in Hematology) scale is a psychometrically valid tool aimed at identifying older patients with hematological malignancies at higher risk of treatment-related toxicity. Our objective in this study was to determine the weights for each dimension of the GAH scale and the cut-off point to reliably predict treatment tolerability in this population, estimated by a weighted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and quantified by the area under the curve (AUC). Material and Methods The RETROGAH was a retrospective cohort study including 126 patients who had previously participated in the GAH study. Patients were ≥ 65 years old with newly diagnosed myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS)/acute myeloid leukemia (AML), multiple myeloma (MM), or chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL) and treated with standard front-line therapy within three months after having completed the GAH scale. Results The optimal cut-off value of the GAH total score to discriminate patients at higher risk of treatment toxicity was 42, with 68.5% sensitivity and 55.8% specificity. Using this value, 66.1% of patients evaluated were found to develop some type of toxicity. The AUC was 0.6259 (95% CI: 0.512–0.739; p = 0.035). Discussion The GAH scale not only would enable clinicians to individualize therapy based on individual risk of toxicity but also discriminate patients that will benefit most from intensive treatments from those requiring an adapted approach. While futures studies in clinical practice may improve the model and overcome its limitations, the GAH scale should not be used alone when making treatment decisions. This study was supported by Celgene España S.L.

The long-term clinical efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines according to antibody response in immunosuppressed patients such as hematological patients has been little explored. A prospective multicenter registry-based cohort study conducted from December 2020 to July 2022 by the Spanish Transplant and Cell Therapy group, was used to analyze the relationship of antibody response over time after full vaccination (at 3-6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months) (2 doses) and of booster doses with breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in 1551 patients with hematological disorders. At a median follow-up of 388 days after complete immunization, 266 out of 1551 (17%) developed breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection at median of 86 days (range 7-391) after full vaccination. The cumulative incidence was 18% [95% confidence interval (C.I.), 16-20%]. Multivariate analysis identified higher incidence in chronic lymphocytic leukemia patients (29%) and with the use of corticosteroids (24.5%), whereas female sex (15.5%) and more than 1 year after last therapy (14%) were associated with a lower incidence (p 0.05 for all comparisons). Median antibody titers at different time points were significantly lower in breakthrough cases than in non-cases. A serological titer cut-off of 250 BAU/mL was predictive of breakthrough infection and its severity. SARS-CoV-2 infection-related mortality was encouragingly low (1.9%) in our series. Our study describes the incidence of and risk factors for COVID-19 breakthrough infections during the initial vaccination and booster doses in the 2021 to mid-2022 period. The level of antibody titers at any time after 2-dose vaccination is strongly linked with protection against both breakthrough infection and severe disease, even with the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant.

Venetoclax in combination with obinutuzumab has significantly improved efficacy versus immunochemotherapy (progression-free survival) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia who have not received prior treatment. The objective of this study was to evaluate its efficiency in Spain using a cost-utility analysis.Using a partitioned-survival analysis model adapted to the Spanish context and based on three health states (progression-free survival, survival after progression, and death), a simulation of the evolution of patients who were candidates for initiating first-line treatment was conducted for a lifetime time horizon. Venetoclax in combination with obinutuzumab was compared to the most commonly used therapeutic options for these patients at the time of study design: chlorambucil in combination with obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, fludarabine in combination with cyclophosphamide and rituximab, and bendamustine in combination with rituximab. In order to estimate survival curves, efficacy data were derived from the CLL14 trial and a network meta- analysis. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System and included direct healthcare costs (i.e. pharmacological costs and their administration), and those associated with the management of the disease and adverse events. The resource use was validated by an expert group. Quality of life data were used to estimate the quality-adjusted life years obtained for each alternative. A threshold of €25,000/quality-adjusted life years was used. The robustness of the model was evaluated using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Venetoclax in combination with obinutuzumab was shown to be a dominant alternative compared to the rest of the treatment alternatives, with a lower cost per patient (€-67,869 compared to chlorambucil in combination with obinutuzumab, €-375,952 compared to ibrutinib, €-61,996 compared to fludarabine in combination with cyclophosphamide and rituximab, and €- 77,398 compared to bendamustine in combination with rituximab). It also had a greater gain in quality-adjusted life years (0.551 quality-adjusted life years gained compared to chlorambucil in combination with obinutuzumab and ibrutinib, 1.639 quality-adjusted life years gained compared to fludarabine in combination with cyclophosphamide and rituximab, and 1.186 quality-adjusted life years gained compared to bendamustine in combination with rituximab). Between 68% and 85% of the simulations performed in the sensitivity analysis showed that venetoclax in combination with obinutuzumab had lower costs and more quality-adjusted life years gained.Venetoclax in combination with obinutuzumab is an efficient and dominant alternative for treating previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia compared to the available alternatives and from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.Venetoclax en combinación con obinutuzumab ha mostrado frente a la inmunoquimioterapia mejoras significativas en términos de eficacia (supervivencia libre de progresión) en pacientes con leucemia infocítica crónica que no han recibido tratamiento previo. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar su eficiencia en España a partir de un análisis de coste- utilidad.Método: A partir de un modelo de análisis de la supervivencia adaptado al contexto español y basado en tres estados de salud (supervivencia libre de progresión, supervivencia tras progresión y muerte), se llevó a cabo una simulación de la evolución de los pacientes candidatos a iniciar una primera línea de tratamiento para un horizonte temporal de toda la vida. Venetoclax en combinación con obinutuzumab se comparó frente a las opciones terapéuticas más utilizadas para estos pacientes en el momento del diseño del estudio: clorambucilo en combinación con obinutuzumab, ibrutinib, fludarabina en combinación con ciclofosfamida y rituximab, y bendamustina en combinación con rituximab. Los datos de eficacia para estimar las curvas de supervivencia fueron derivados del estudio CLL14 y de un metaanálisis en red. El análisis consideró la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud incluyendo los costes sanitarios directos, en concreto los farmacológicos y su administración, y los asociados al manejo de la enfermedad y acontecimientos adversos. El uso de recursos fue validado por un grupo de expertos. Se emplearon datos de calidad de vida para estimar los años de vida ajustados por calidad obtenidos para cada alternativa. Se consideró un umbral de 25.000 €/años de vida ajustados por calidad. La robustez del modelo se evaluó mediante análisis de sensibilidad determinísticos y probabilísticos.Venetoclax en combinación con obinutuzumab se mostró como una alternativa dominante frente al resto de alternativas de tratamiento, con un menor coste por paciente (–67.869 € frente a clorambucilo en combinación con obinutuzumab, –375.952 € frente a ibrutinib, –61.996 € frente a ludarabina en combinación con ciclofosfamida y rituximab, y –77.398 € frente a bendamustina en combinación con rituximab) y una mayor ganancia en años de vida ajustados por calidad (0,551 años de vida ajustados por calidad ganados frente a clorambucilo en combinación con obinutuzumab e ibrutinib, 1,639 años de vida ajustados por calidad ganados frente a fludarabina en combinación con ciclofosfamida y rituximab, y 1,186 años de vida ajustados por calidad ganados frente a bendamustina en combinación con rituximab). Entre el 68% y el 85% de las simulaciones realizadas en el análisis de sensibilidad mostraban a venetoclax en combinación con obinutuzumab con un menor coste y un mayor número de años de vida ajustados por calidad ganados.Venetoclax en combinación con obinutuzumab se muestra como una alternativa eficiente y dominante como tratamiento de pacientes con leucemia linfocítica crónica no tratados previamente frente a las alternativas disponibles y desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud.

Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk of thrombosis, acute respiratory distress syndrome and death. The optimal dosage of thromboprophylaxis is unknown. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tinzaparin in prophylactic, intermediate, and therapeutic doses in non-critical patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia. PROTHROMCOVID is a randomized, unblinded, controlled, multicenter trial enrolling non-critical, hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were randomized to prophylactic (4500 IU), intermediate (100 IU/kg), or therapeutic (175 IU/kg) groups. All tinzaparin doses were administered once daily during hospitalization, followed by 7 days of prophylactic tinzaparin at discharge. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite endpoint of symptomatic systemic thrombotic events, need for invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or death within 30 days. The main safety outcome was major bleeding at 30 days. Of the 311 subjects randomized, 300 were included in the prespecified interim analysis (mean [SD] age, 56.7 [14.6] years; males, 182 [60.7%]). The composite endpoint at 30 days from randomization occurred in 58 patients (19.3%) of the total population; 19 (17.1 %) in the prophylactic group, 20 (22.1%) in the intermediate group, and 19 (18.5%) in the therapeutic dose group (p = 0.72). No major bleeding event was reported; non-major bleeding was observed in 3.7% of patients, with no intergroup differences. Due to these results and the futility analysis, the trial was stopped. In non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, intermediate or full-dose tinzaparin compared to standard prophylactic doses did not appear to affect the risk of thrombotic event, non-invasive ventilation, or mechanical ventilation or death. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT04730856). Edura-CT registration number: 2020-004279-42.

SARS-CoV-2; Hematological malignancies SARS-CoV-2; Neoplasias hematológicas SARS-CoV-2; Neoplasies hematològiques Optics COMMIT (COVID-19 Unmet Medical Needs and Associated Research Extension) COVID-19 RFP program by GILEAD Science, United States, Grant/Award Number: Project 2020-8223.

The AETHERA trial demonstrated that brentuximab vedotin (BV) consolidation after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) at high risk of relapse/progression increases progression-free survival (PFS). Patients previously exposed to BV were excluded from that trial. However, BV alone or in combination with chemotherapy is frequently used as front-line treatment and/or pre-ASCT salvage therapy. We analyzed data from 156 patients with high-risk HL who underwent ASCT with (BV-CON, n = 62) or without (non-BV, n = 94) BV consolidation. Fifty-seven patients received BV-based salvage regimens before ASCT. The 3-year overall survival and PFS for all patients were 91.6% and 70.0%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that BV-CON was associated with better PFS (HR 0.39, p = 0.01), whereas positive PET at transplant leaded to worse PFS (HR 2.71, p = 0.001). BV-CON improved PFS in PET-positive patients (72.2% vs. 43.0%, p = 0.05), with a beneficial trend observed in PET negative (88.8% vs. 75.2%, p = 0.09). BV-CON patients with or without BV exposure pre-ASCT had a significantly better PFS than non-BV with or without BV pretransplant treatment (HR 0.36, p = 0.004). The efficacy of real-life BV consolidation therapy was similar to that in the AETHERA trial. This therapeutic strategy improves survival independently of BV exposure prior to ASCT.

Background: Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) may be more susceptible to COVID-19 related poor outcomes, including thrombosis and death, due to the advanced age, the presence of comorbidities, and the disease and treatment-related immune deficiency. In this retrospective multicenter study, conducted by ERIC, the European Research Initiative on CLL, we assessed the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in patients with CLL affected by severe COVID-19.Methods: The study included patients from 79 centers across 22 countries. Data collection was conducted between April and May 2021.Results: A total of 793 patients from 79 centers were included in the study with 593 being hospitalized (74.8%). Among these, 518 were defined as having severe COVID: 162 were admitted to the ICU while 356 received oxygen supplementation outside the ICU. Most patients (90%) were receiving thromboprophylaxis. During COVID-19 treatment, 8.8% developed a thromboembolic event, while 4.8% experienced bleeding. Thrombosis developed in 20.5% of patients who were not receiving thromboprophylaxis, but only in 8.1% of patients who were on thromboprophylaxis. Bleeding episodes were more frequent in patients receiving intermediate/therapeutic versus prophylactic doses of low-molecular-weight heparin (LWMH) (11.1% vs. 4.2%, respectively) and in elderly. In multivariate analysis, peak D-dimer level was a poor prognostic factor for thrombosis occurrence (OR=1.020, 95%CI 1.006‒1.033), while thromboprophylaxis use was protective (OR=0.194, 95%CI 0.061‒0.614). Age and LMWH intermediate/therapeutic dose administration were prognostic factors in multivariate model for bleeding (OR=1.055, 95%CI 1.013-1.103 and OR=2.490, 95%CI 1.044-5.935, respectively). Conclusions: Patients with CLL affected by severe COVID-19 are at a high risk of thrombosis if thromboprophylaxis is not used, but also at increased risk of bleeding under the LMWH intermediate/therapeutic dose administration.

Mortality rates for COVID-19 have declined over time in the general population, but data in patients with hematologic malignancies are contradictory. We identified independent prognostic factors for COVID-19 severity and survival in unvaccinated patients with hematologic malignancies, compared mortality rates over time and versus non-cancer inpatients, and investigated post COVID-19 condition. Data were analyzed from 1166 consecutive, eligible patients with hematologic malignancies from the population-based HEMATO-MADRID registry, Spain, with COVID-19 prior to vaccination roll-out, stratified into early (February–June 2020; n = 769 (66%)) and later (July 2020–February 2021; n = 397 (34%)) cohorts. Propensity-score matched non-cancer patients were identified from the SEMI-COVID registry. A lower proportion of patients were hospitalized in the later waves (54.2%) compared to the earlier (88.6%), OR 0.15, 95%CI 0.11–0.20. The proportion of hospitalized patients admitted to the ICU was higher in the later cohort (103/215, 47.9%) compared with the early cohort (170/681, 25.0%, 2.77; 2.01–3.82). The reduced 30-day mortality between early and later cohorts of non-cancer inpatients (29.6% vs. 12.6%, OR 0.34; 0.22–0.53) was not paralleled in inpatients with hematologic malignancies (32.3% vs. 34.8%, OR 1.12; 0.81–1.5). Among evaluable patients, 27.3% had post COVID-19 condition. These findings will help inform evidence-based preventive and therapeutic strategies for patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19 diagnosis.

Background Patients with cancer have been shown to have a higher risk of clinical severity and mortality compared to non-cancer patients with COVID-19. Patients with hematologic malignancies typically are known to have higher levels of immunosuppression and may develop more severe respiratory viral infections than patients with solid tumours. Data on COVID-19 in patients with hematologic malignancies are limited. Here we characterise disease severity and mortality, and evaluate potential prognostic factors for mortality.Methods In this population-based registry study, we collected de-identified data on clinical characteristics, treatment and outcomes in adult patients with hematologic malignancies and confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection within the Madrid region of Spain. Our case series included all patients admitted to 22 regional health service hospitals and 5 private healthcare centres between February 28 and May 25, 2020. The primary study outcome was all-cause mortality. We assessed the association between mortality and potential prognostic factors using Cox regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, hematologic malignancy and recent active cancer therapy.Results Of 833 patients reported, 697 were included in the analyses. Median age was 72 years (IQR 60–79), 413 (60%) patients were male, and 479 (69%) and 218 (31%) had lymphoid and myeloid malignancies, respectively. Clinical severity of COVID-19 was severe/critical in 429 (62%) patients. At data cutoff, 230 (33%) patients had died. Age ≥60 years (hazard ratios 3·17–10·1 vs 2 comorbidities (1·41 vs ≤2), acute myeloid leukemia (2·22 vs non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and active antineoplastic treatment with monoclonal antibodies (2·02) or conventional chemotherapy (1·50 vs no active therapy) were associated with increased mortality. Conversely, Ph-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (0·33) and active treatment with hypomethylating agents (0·47) were associated with lower mortality. Overall, 574 (82%) patients received antiviral therapy. Mortality with severe/critical COVID-19 was higher with no therapy vs any antiviral combination therapy (2.20).Conclusions In this series of patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19, mortality was associated with higher age, more comorbidities, type of hematological malignancy and type of antineoplastic therapy. Further studies and long-term follow-up are required to validate these criteria for risk-stratification.

MYC-rearranged (MYC-R) lymphomas other than Burkitt lymphoma (BL) are very aggressive, with poor prognosis when treated with standard regimens. We aimed to study the characteristics and outcome of a series of MYC-R lymphomas comparing the treatment results between R-CHOP based and a specific intensive regimen for BL (BURKIMAB).Retrospective study of patients diagnosed with MYC-R. Translocations of MYC, BCL2 and BCL6 were evaluated by fluorescent in situ hybridization. Patients were treated with either, R-CHOP based immunochemotherapy or the Burkitt type regimen, BURKIMAB.Thirty-four MYC-R lymphoma cases were studied: 21 treated with R-CHOP and 13 treated with BURKIMAB. There were no differences in CR rate; 45% (9/20) for R-CHOP and 42% (5/12) for BURKIMAB (P=.99). Although overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) of BURKIMAB-treated patients were better than those of R-CHOP-treated (3y-OS: 46 vs. 24%; 3y-PFS: 46 vs. 10%), the differences were not statistically significant.MYC-R lymphomas show poor outcomes even when treated with intensive immunochemotherapy for BL.

Primary haematopoietic neoplasms of the larynx constitute less than 1% of all laryngeal tumours. Most of them are extramedullary plasmocytomas, diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, or MALT-type marginal zone B-cell lymphomas. T- or NK-cell lymphomas have rarely been reported in this location. The diagnosis of laryngeal lymphomas is a challenge, due to the absence of clinical and gross differential criteria. A pathological study is required in all cases. We present hereby a primary laryngeal T/NK-cell lymphoma, nasal-type. The patient, of Mexican origin, presented with involvement of the epiglottis, both aryepiglottic folds, and cervical lymphadenopathies. Polychemotherapy was administrated with initial partial response, but rapid local progression and exitus followed six months after the diagnosis. The extranodal T/NK-cell lymphoma, nasal-type is a very aggressive subtype of extranodal lymphoma, usually located in the nasal cavity or in nearby sites. Primary involvement of the larynx is extremely unusual. The prognosis of extranasal cases of this type of lymphoma is poor, even when they are diagnosed in localized stages.