Cost-effectiveness of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma.

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is traditionally considered treatable but incurable. In March 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) FL after ≥2 lines of therapy. Priced at $373 000, CAR T-cell therapy is potentially curative, and its cost-effectiveness compared with other modern R/R FL treatment strategies is unknown. We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of third-line CAR T-cell vs standard of care (SOC) therapies in adults with R/R FL. We estimated progression rates for patients receiving CAR T-cell and SOC therapies from the ZUMA-5 trial and the LEO CReWE study, respectively. We calculated costs, discounted life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAR T-cell vs SOC therapies with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. Our analysis was conducted from a US payer's perspective over a lifetime horizon. In our base-case model, the cost of the CAR T-cell strategy was $731 682 compared with $458 490 for SOC therapies. However, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with incremental clinical benefit of 1.50 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $182 127 per QALY. Our model was most sensitive to the utilities associated with CAR T-cell therapy remission and third-line SOC therapies and to the total upfront CAR T-cell therapy cost. Under current pricing, CAR T-cell therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in unselected patients with FL in the third-line setting. Both randomized clinical trials and longer term clinical follow-up can help clarify the benefits of CAR T-cell therapy and optimal sequencing in patients with FL.

Optimization of repeat plerixafor dosing for autologous peripheral blood stem-cell collection.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral CD34+ cells may be mobilized using filgrastim alone or in combination with chemotherapy. The addition of plerixafor can be efficacious, though guidelines for repeat dosing are lacking. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This quality improvement project was initiated to generate guidelines for repeat plerixafor dosing after retrospective evaluation of data in adult patients undergoing autologous peripheral blood stem cell mobilization and collection. RESULTS: Analysis included 195 patients: 119 (61 %) with multiple myeloma and 76 (39 %) with lymphoma. Patients given at least one dose of plerixafor (n = 109) were further divided: Group 1) (A) goal of 3 × 10E6/kg and day 1 peripheral blood CD34+ count < 30 × 10E6/L, vs (B) ≥ 30 × 10 E6/L; Group 2) (A) goal of 6 × 10E6/kg and day 1 peripheral blood CD34+ count < 50 × 10E6/L or < 50 % of collection goal after day 1, vs (B) ≥ 50 % of collection goal after day 1. Ninety five percent of cases in Group 1B and 88 % of cases in Group 2B did not receive additional plerixafor doses and all of them achieved their collection goals. In contrast, those in Groups 1A and 2A required additional plerixafor dosing and some mobilizations/collections were futile. CONCLUSION: Based on these data, with consideration of collection goal, peripheral blood CD34+ count, and CD34+ cell bag count on collection day 1, we have generated institutional guidelines for collection initiation and repeat plerixafor dosing. Long term, we predict these guidelines will optimize pharmacy, apheresis, and stem cell processing resources while improving the patient experience.

Myeloid sarcoma, chloroma, or extramedullary acute myeloid leukemia tumor: A tale of misnomers, controversy and the unresolved.

The World Health Organization classification and definition of "myeloid sarcoma" is imprecise and misleading. A more accurate term is "extramedullary acute myeloid leukemia tumor (eAML)." The pathogenesis of eAML has been associated with aberrancy of cellular adhesion molecules, chemokine receptors/ligands and RAS-MAPK/ERK signaling. eAML can present with or without synchronous or metachronous intramedullary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) so a bone marrow evaluation is always recommended. Accurate diagnosis of eAML requires tissue biopsy. eAML confined to one or a few sites is frequently treated with local therapy such as radiotherapy. About 75-90% of patients with isolated eAML will develop metachronous intramedullary AML with a median latency period ranging from 4 to 12 months; thus, patients with isolated eAML may also be treated with systemic anti-leukemia therapy. eAML does not appear to have an independent prognostic impact; selection of post-remission therapy including allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) is typically guided by intramedullary disease risk. Management of isolated eAML should be individualized based on patient characteristics as well as eAML location and cytogenetic/molecular features. The role of PET/CT in eAML is also currently being elucidated. Improving outcomes of patients with eAML requires further knowledge of its etiology and mechanism(s) as well as therapeutic approaches beyond conventional chemotherapy, ideally in the context of controlled trials.

Autologous Stem Cell Mobilization in the Age of Plerixafor.

BACKGROUND: Autologous stem cell transplantation remains important in the treatment of myeloma and relapsed lymphoma. Plerixafor has been shown to significantly enhance stem cell mobilization but is very expensive. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We evaluated plerixafor use in the 3-year period after its approval in December 2008. RESULTS: A total of 277 patients with myeloma and lymphoma had stem cell mobilization; 97.5% were successfully mobilized, including 41.5% who received plerixafor. Plerixafor was generally used for rescue after suboptimal granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilization ("just in time") or for remobilization after an unsuccessful attempt with chemotherapy plus G-CSF. In addition, 10% of patients received planned G-CSF plus plerixafor because of high risk factors for inadequate collection. Rescue plerixafor was more effective in patients with myeloma than lymphoma as after 1 dose of plerixafor; 85% versus 55% collected a minimum number of stem cells (2 × 10E6 CD34 cells/kg) for 1 transplant and 51% versus 15% collected > 5 × 10E6 CD34 cells/kg. After transplantation, there were no significant differences in engraftment as a consequence of plerixafor use. Among all patients, there were less platelet transfusions in patients provided ≥ 3.5 × 10E6 CD34(+) cells/kg. CONCLUSION: With the judicious use of plerixafor, nearly all patients can collect enough stem cells to proceed to transplantation. Further studies, including hematologic tolerance to posttransplantation therapy, are required to determine the cost-effectiveness of using plerixafor to convert adequate to more optimal mobilizers.

Successful collection and engraftment of autologous peripheral blood progenitor cells in poorly mobilized patients receiving high-dose granulocyte colony-stimulating factor.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) alone or in conjunction with chemotherapy is commonly used to mobilize hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) into peripheral blood for progenitor cell harvest for autologous HPC transplantation. However, in up to 30% of patients, HPC are not effectively mobilized. In this study, we report the efficacy and safety profiles of a mobilization strategy using high-dose (up to 36 µg/kg) G-CSF in poorly mobilized patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective medical record reviews were performed for 392 patients who underwent autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell collection. A total of 56 patients were given high-dose G-CSF due to very ineffective mobilization and 35 of these patients underwent autologous HPC transplantation. The efficacy of mobilization, apheresis collection, and infusion were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: More than 2.5 × 10(6) CD34/Kg were collected in 88% of patients (49 of 56) who were placed on high-dose G-CSF due to very ineffective mobilization. Of the 35 patients who underwent HPC transplantation using the progenitor cells that were mobilized with high-dose G-CSF due to very ineffective mobilization, all had rapid and complete neutrophil and platelet engraftment comparable with good mobilizers. CONCLUSION: We conclude that collection of HPC using hyperstimulation with G-CSF is an effective alternative approach for HPC harvest for poorly mobilized patients.

Late afternoon dosing of plerixafor for stem cell mobilization: a practical solution.

BACKGROUND: Plerixafor was recently approved for stem cell mobilization in patients who have non-Hodgkin lymphoma or multiple myeloma. However, the use of late evening (10 PM) injections is inconvenient for patients and requires an after-hours infrastructure that may not be readily available. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on an earlier study showing prolonged mobilization of stem cells in patients given plerixafor plus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), we administered plerixafor at 5 PM and performed apheresis approximately 15 hours later. Plerixafor was administered primarily to patients who either had failed previous mobilization or were at risk for poor mobilization because of previous therapy, especially lenalidomide in patients who had multiple myeloma. RESULTS: Of 48 patients, including 24 with myeloma and 24 with lymphoma, 47 had enough stem cells collected (> 2 × 10E6 CD34+ cells/kg) to proceed to transplant, including all 13 patients who had failed previous chemotherapy plus G-CSF mobilization and 18 patients treated with four cycles or more of lenalidomide. The day +1 post-plerixafor increment in circulating CD34+ cells was greatest in patients who had the highest preplerixafor CD34 count; however, in patients with preplerixafor CD34+ cell counts < 10/µL (and who typically mobilize poorly), 83% of patients had enough stem cells collected to proceed to transplant. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that plerixafor is effective when given 15 hours before apheresis, even in a population at high risk for mobilization failure. A proposed cost-effective use of plerixafor is to administer it to patients who are inadequately mobilized with G-CSF alone or for salvage in patients who fail previous mobilization with chemotherapy plus G-CSF.