NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Systemic Mastocytosis, Version 3.2024.

Mastocytosis is a heterogeneous group of disorders comprising cutaneous mastocytosis, systemic mastocytosis, and mast cell sarcoma. It is associated with a variety of symptoms related to the release of mast cell mediators and mast cell tissue infiltration. Referral to specialized centers with expertise in the management of mastocytosis and multidisciplinary collaboration with subspecialists (eg, allergists for the management of anaphylaxis and drug hypersensitivities, anesthesiologists for invasive procedures or surgery, high-risk obstetrician for pregnancy) is recommended. The NCCN Guidelines for Systemic Mastocytosis provide evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the diagnosis and comprehensive care of patients with systemic mastocytosis. The multidisciplinary panel of experts convenes at least once a year to review requested changes to the guidelines from both internal and external entities as well as to discuss data on existing and new therapies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on some of the recent updates to the guidelines.

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma, Version 2.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) are essentially different manifestations of the same disease that are similarly managed. A number of molecular and cytogenetic variables with prognostic implications have been identified. Undetectable minimal residual disease at the end of treatment with chemoimmunotherapy or venetoclax-based combination regimens is an independent predictor of improved survival among patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL. The selection of treatment is based on the disease stage, presence or absence of del(17p) or TP53 mutation, immunoglobulin heavy chain variable region mutation status, patient age, performance status, comorbid conditions, and the agent's toxicity profile. This manuscript discusses the recommendations outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with CLL/SLL.

Myeloproliferative Neoplasms, Version 3.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

The classic Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) consist of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia and are a heterogeneous group of clonal blood disorders characterized by an overproduction of blood cells. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for MPN were developed as a result of meetings convened by a multidisciplinary panel with expertise in MPN, with the goal of providing recommendations for the management of MPN in adults. The Guidelines include recommendations for the diagnostic workup, risk stratification, treatment, and supportive care strategies for the management of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and essential thrombocythemia. Assessment of symptoms at baseline and monitoring of symptom status during the course of treatment is recommended for all patients. This article focuses on the recommendations as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for the diagnosis of MPN and the risk stratification, management, and supportive care relevant to MF.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia/Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma, Version 3.2022.

The treatment landscape of chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) has significantly evolved in recent years. Targeted therapy with Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors and BCL-2 inhibitors has emerged as an effective chemotherapy-free option for patients with previously untreated or relapsed/refractory CLL/SLL. Undetectable minimal residual disease after the end of treatment is emerging as an important predictor of progression-free and overall survival for patients treated with fixed-duration BCL-2 inhibitor-based treatment. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the updates to the NCCN Guidelines for CLL/SLL specific to the use of chemotherapy-free treatment options for patients with treatment-naïve and relapsed/refractory disease.

Clinical experience with frontline Hyper-CVAD-based regimens, including Hyper-CVAD plus ponatinib, in patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Hyper-CVAD is an established regimen for adult ALL that was developed at the MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC). However, results can vary across different institutions given the heterogeneity of patient populations and institutional practices. Moreover, while a MDACC study demonstrated that the combination of ponatinib plus hyper-CVAD produced remarkable activity in untreated Ph+ ALL, it remains to be externally validated. We sought to validate those findings in previously untreated adult patients with Ph+ ALL. METHODS: This was a retrospective study analyzing the outcomes of previously untreated adult ALL patients treated with hyper-CVAD, with a focus on Ph+ ALL patients treated with ponatinib plus hyper-CVAD. RESULTS: 82 patients were included. The median age was 51 years. The median follow-up was 2.62 years. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were 39.5 % and 28.2 %, respectively. For Ph+ ALL patients (n = 13) receiving ponatinib plus hyper-CVAD, 3-year OS and EFS were both 92.3 %. Univariate analysis showed a high WBC and poor-risk cytogenetics to be associated with inferior outcomes, while CD20 + predicted favorable outcomes in B-ALL patients. On multivariate analysis, CD20 + retained significance for Philadelphia-negative (Ph-) ALL. For Ph+ ALL, ponatinib was associated with better OS and EFS on univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our data supports the use of ponatinib plus hyper-CVAD as a standard of care regimen for Ph+ ALL. Our outcomes for Ph-ALL and T-cell ALL (T-ALL) show that advances are still needed in the frontline setting, and clinical trial enrollment is recommended.

Long-term Follow-up and Correlative Analysis of Two Phase II Trials of Rituximab and Lenalidomide Followed by Continuous Lenalidomide in Untreated and Relapsed/Refractory Indolent Lymphoma.

PURPOSE: Rituximab and lenalidomide are effective for previously untreated and relapsed/refractory (R/R) indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (iNHL). However, long-term survival and predictive biomarkers are not well described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted two phase II open-label trials involving 60 patients with previously untreated and R/R advanced-stage iNHL. Patients received lenalidomide and rituximab induction followed by continuous lenalidomide until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Correlative studies included plasma cytokine monitoring, flow cytometry of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC; days 0, 15, 30, and 60), and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) of pretreatment tumor biopsies. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 63 months for previously untreated and 100 months for R/R, ORR was 82% for both. The 11 R/R patients who achieved complete remission remained in continuous remission for 16 to 141 months, thereafter. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in the previously untreated and was 140 months (95% confidence interval, 53.4-140) in the R/R group. A mixed-effects linear regression model identified significant associations between Granzyme B+ (GranB+) CD8+ T cells and long-term complete response (LTCR; P = 5.3e-4). Furthermore, prior to start of therapy, treatment response could be predicted by B-cell and GranB+ CD8+ T-cell levels (% total lymphocytes). CONCLUSIONS: Rituximab plus lenalidomide followed by continuous lenalidomide is effective with manageable toxicity in patients with previously untreated and R/R iNHL. This regimen produces durable remissions, even in heavily pretreated patients, with some lasting greater than 10 years. GranB+ CD8+ T cells, B cells, and plasma IFNγ allowed prediction of LTCR but need validation in larger trials.

Ofatumumab and Complement Replacement in Relapsed/Refractory Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

BACKGROUND: While many humanized monoclonal antibodies utilize complement-dependent cytotoxicity, the complement depleting effects of these antibodies and the impact of complement replacement on treatment response are not well-described. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 trial involving patients with relapsed/refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Patients were treated with ofatumumab with fresh frozen plasma (FFP) used as a source of complement replacement. The primary endpoint was objective response rate. Correlative endpoints included complement levels (C3 and C4) and complement activity (CH50) which was drawn at baseline and after ofatumumab with FFP administration. RESULTS: Among 12 enrolled patients, overall response rate was 83% with two patients (17%) achieving a complete response. While only two (17%) patients had low complement activity at baseline, eight (67%) developed low levels of complement activity after ofatumumab treatment with FFP replacement. The magnitude of complement depletion did not correlate with response. Adverse events were minimal. The combination of ofatumumab and FFP demonstrated tolerability and surprising activity in high-risk CLL patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ofatumumab and FFP demonstrated tolerability and surprising activity in high-risk CLL patients. Complement replacement should be studied further as a minimally toxic approach to improve efficacy of monoclonal antibody-based regimens.

Phase 1 study of the Aurora kinase A inhibitor alisertib (MLN8237) combined with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat in lymphoid malignancies.

Alisertib, an Aurora kinase A inhibitor, was evaluated in a Phase 1 study in combination with the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat, in patients with relapsed/refractory lymphoid malignancies (N = 34; NCT01567709). Patients received alisertib plus vorinostat in 21-day treatment cycles with escalating doses of alisertib following a continuous or an intermittent schedule. All dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were hematologic and there were no study-related deaths. The recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of the combination was 20 mg bid of alisertib and 200 mg bid of vorinostat on the intermittent schedule. A 13-patient expansion cohort was treated for a total of 18 patients at the RP2D. There were no DLTs at the RP2D, and toxicities were mainly hematologic. Two patients with DLBCL achieved a durable complete response, and two patients with HL achieved partial response. Alisertib plus vorinostat showed encouraging clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in heavily pretreated patients with advanced disease.

Patients' Hopes for Advanced Cancer Treatment.

CONTEXT: Little is known about the hopes patients with advanced (incurable) cancer have for their treatment. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe the treatment hopes of advanced cancer patients, factors associated with expressing specific hopes, and the persons with whom hopes are discussed. METHODS: We surveyed 265 advanced cancer patients in the U.S. about their hopes for treatment at the baseline and after three months. We developed a taxonomy of hopes for treatment, which two investigators used to independently code patient responses. We explored associations between hopes for cure and patient covariates. RESULTS: We developed eight categories of hopes. We were able to apply these codes reliably, and 95% of the patient's responses fit at least one hope category. The hope categories in order of descending baseline prevalence were as follows: quality of life, life extension, tumor stabilization, remission, milestone, unqualified cure, control not otherwise specified, and cure tempered by realism. Most patients reported discussing hopes with partners, family/friends, and oncologists; a minority reported discussing hopes with nurses, primary care physicians, clergy, or support groups. In logistic regression analysis, unqualified hopes for cure were more likely in younger patients and in those who did not endorse discussing their hopes with primary care physicians. CONCLUSION: Advanced cancer patients harbor a range of treatment hopes. These hopes often are not discussed with key members of the health care team. Younger age and lack of discussion of hopes with primary care physicians may lead to less realistic hopes for cure.

Effect of a Patient-Centered Communication Intervention on Oncologist-Patient Communication, Quality of Life, and Health Care Utilization in Advanced Cancer: The VOICE Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Observational studies demonstrate links between patient-centered communication, quality of life (QOL), and aggressive treatments in advanced cancer, yet few randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of communication interventions have been reported. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a combined intervention involving oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and caregivers would promote patient-centered communication, and to estimate intervention effects on shared understanding, patient-physician relationships, QOL, and aggressive treatments in the last 30 days of life. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cluster RCT at community- and hospital-based cancer clinics in Western New York and Northern California; 38 medical oncologists (mean age 44.6 years; 11 (29%) female) and 265 community-dwelling adult patients with advanced nonhematologic cancer participated (mean age, 64.4 years, 146 [55.0%] female, 235 [89%] white; enrolled August 2012 to June 2014; followed for 3 years); 194 patients had participating caregivers. INTERVENTIONS: Oncologists received individualized communication training using standardized patient instructors while patients received question prompt lists and individualized communication coaching to identify issues to address during an upcoming oncologist visit. Both interventions focused on engaging patients in consultations, responding to emotions, informing patients about prognosis and treatment choices, and balanced framing of information. Control participants received no training. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was a composite measure of patient-centered communication coded from audio recordings of the first oncologist visit following patient coaching (intervention group) or enrollment (control). Secondary outcomes included the patient-physician relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, QOL, and aggressive treatments and hospice use in the last 30 days of life. RESULTS: Data from 38 oncologists (19 randomized to intervention) and 265 patients (130 intervention) were analyzed. In fully adjusted models, the intervention resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements in the primary physician-patient communication end point (adjusted intervention effect, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.06-0.62; P = .02). Differences in secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A combined intervention that included oncologist communication training and coaching for patients with advanced cancer was effective in improving patient-centered communication but did not affect secondary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01485627.

Values and options in cancer care (VOICE): study design and rationale for a patient-centered communication and decision-making intervention for physicians, patients with advanced cancer, and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Communication about prognosis and treatment choices is essential for informed decision making in advanced cancer. This article describes an investigation designed to facilitate communication and decision making among oncologists, patients with advanced cancer, and their caregivers. METHODS/DESIGN: The Values and Options in Cancer Care (VOICE) Study is a National Cancer Institute sponsored randomized controlled trial conducted in the Rochester/Buffalo, NY and Sacramento, CA regions. A total of 40 oncologists, approximately 400 patients with advanced cancer, and their family/friend caregivers (one per patient, when available) are expected to enroll in the study. Drawing upon ecological theory, the intervention uses a two-pronged approach: oncologists complete a multifaceted tailored educational intervention involving standardized patient instructors (SPIs), and patients and caregivers complete a coaching intervention to facilitate prioritizing and discussing questions and concerns. Follow-up data will be collected approximately quarterly for up to three years. DISCUSSION: The intervention is hypothesized to enhance patient-centered communication, quality of care, and patient outcomes. Analyses will examine the effects of the intervention on key elements of physician-patient-caregiver communication (primary outcomes), the physician-patient relationship, shared understanding of prognosis, patient well-being, and health service utilization (secondary outcomes). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT01485627.