Advancing Inclusive Research (AIR) Site Alliance: Facilitating the inclusion of historically underrepresented people in oncology and ophthalmology clinical research.

BACKGROUND: The Advancing Inclusive Research (AIR) Site Alliance is composed of clinical research centers that partner with Genentech, a biotechnology company, to advance the representation of diverse patient populations in its oncology and ophthalmology clinical trials, test recruitment, and retention approaches and establish best practices to leverage across the industry to achieve health equity. METHODS: Through a data-driven selection process, Genentech identified 6 oncology and 3 ophthalmology partners that focus on reaching historically underrepresented patients in clinical trials and worked collaboratively to share knowledge and explore original ways of increasing clinical study access for every patient, including sites co-creation of a Protocol Entry Criteria Guideline with inclusion principles. RESULTS: For patients, three publicly available educational videos about clinical trials were created in multiple languages. The AIR Site Alliance has also defined invoiceable services for sites to enhance patient support; this has been built into the new study budget templates for sustainability. For healthcare professionals (HCPs), the first-of-its-kind AIR Educational Program was developed to focus on identifying and addressing bias and engaging historically underrepresented patient populations in trials. The sites also co-created videos for HCPs and patients on why advancing inclusive research matters. Over 16 regional health equity symposia have been delivered for patients, HCPs, and community leaders. CONCLUSIONS: This AIR Site Alliance is a model for other site alliances, including Kenya, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Such alliances will build a robust and sustainable research ecosystem that includes diverse patient groups and encourages change across the healthcare system.

Cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin in combination with chemoimmunotherapy (pola-R-CHP) in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Germany.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of frontline polatuzumab vedotin-R-CHP (pola-R-CHP) treatment for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in Germany by using a Markov model (lifetime horizon). Progression rates and survival outcomes were extrapolated from the POLARIX trial. Outcomes were measured in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERS) with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of €80 000/quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Assuming, 69.6% 5-year PFS with pola-R-CHP and 62.6% 5-year PFS with R-CHOP, the addition of polatuzumab vedotin resulted in an additional 0.52 life-years and an incremental 0.65 QALYs but €31 988 additional cost. Based on this, pola-R-CHP was cost-effective (€49 238/QALY) at a WTP of €80 000/QALY. The cost-effectiveness of pola-R-CHP is highly dependent on its long-term outcomes and cost. Our analysis is limited by the fact that the long-term outcomes of pola-R-CHP are unknown at this time.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line axicabtagene ciloleucel in relapsed refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

The ZUMA-7 (Efficacy of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Compared to Standard of Care Therapy in Subjects With Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma) study showed that axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) improved event-free survival (EFS) compared with standard of care (SOC) salvage chemoimmunotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant in primary refractory/early relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL); this led to its recent US Food and Drug Administration approval in this setting. We modeled a hypothetical cohort of US adults (mean age, 65 years) with primary refractory/early relapsed DLBCL by developing a Markov model (lifetime horizon) to model the cost-effectiveness of second-line axi-cel compared with SOC using a range of plausible long-term outcomes. EFS and OS were estimated from ZUMA-7. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Assuming a 5-year EFS of 35% with second-line axi-cel and 10% with SOC, axi-cel was cost-effective at a WTP of $150 000 per QALY ($93 547 per QALY). axi-cel was no longer cost-effective if its 5-year EFS was ≤26.4% or if it cost more than $972 061 at a WTP of $150 000. Second-line axi-cel was the cost-effective strategy in 73% of the 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a WTP of $150 000. If the absolute benefit in EFS is maintained over time, second-line axi-cel for aggressive relapsed/refractory DLBCL is cost-effective compared with SOC at a WTP of $150 000 per QALY. However, its cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on long-term outcomes. Routine use of second-line chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy would add significantly to health care expenditures in the United States (more than $1 billion each year), even when used in a high-risk subpopulation. Further reductions in the cost of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy are needed to be affordable in many regions of the world.

Cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin combined with chemoimmunotherapy in untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

In patients with treatment-naive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the POLARIX study (A Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Polatuzumab Vedotin With Rituximab-Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Prednisone [R-CHP] Versus Rituximab-Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone [R-CHOP] in Participants With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma) reported a 6.5% improvement in the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS), with no difference in overall survival (OS) or safety using polatuzumab vedotin, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (pola-R-CHP) compared with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pola-R-CHP for DLBCL. We modeled a hypothetical cohort of US adults (mean age, 65 years) with treatment-naive DLBCL by developing a Markov model (lifetime horizon) to model the cost-effectiveness of pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP using a range of plausible long-term outcomes. Progression rates and OS were estimated from POLARIX. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Assuming a 5-year PFS of 69.6% with pola-R-CHP and 62.7% with R-CHOP, pola-R-CHP was cost-effective at a WTP of $150 000 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $84 308/QALY). pola-R-CHP was no longer cost-effective if its 5-year PFS was 66.1% or lower. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that pola-R-CHP is cost-effective up to a cost of $276 312 at a WTP of $150 000. pola-R-CHP was the cost-effective strategy in 56.6% of the 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a WTP of $150 000. If the absolute benefit in PFS is maintained over time, pola-R-CHP is cost-effective compared with R-CHOP at a WTP of $150 000/QALY. However, its cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on its long-term outcomes and costs of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Routine usage of pola-R-CHP would add significantly to health care expenditures. Price reductions or identification of subgroups that have maximal benefit would improve cost-effectiveness.

Updates on Circulating Tumor DNA Assessment in Lymphoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for the purposes of diagnosis, prognosis, assessment of treatment response, and monitoring for relapse is a new and developing field in lymphoma. This review aims to summarize many of the most recent advances in ctDNA applications. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies have demonstrated the use of ctDNA assessment across many lymphoma subtypes including diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, and T-cell lymphoma. In addition, many novel applications of ctDNA assessment have been described such as the development of new prognostic models, investigation of clonal evolution and heterogeneity, early assessment of treatment response, and prediction of response to targeted therapy as a form of personalized medicine. The use of ctDNA has been shown to be feasible across many lymphoma subtypes and has shown significant promise for several new applications. Additional studies will be needed to validate these findings prior to routine use in clinical practice.

Outcomes of Medicare-age eligible NHL patients receiving RIC allogeneic transplantation: a CIBMTR analysis.

The application of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) patients ≥65 years in the United States is limited by lack of Medicare coverage for this indication. Using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) database, we report allo-HCT outcomes of NHL patients aged ≥65 years (older cohort; n = 446) compared with a cohort of younger NHL patients aged 55-64 years (n = 1183). We identified 1629 NHL patients undergoing a first reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) or nonmyeloablative conditioning allo-HCT from 2008 to 2015 in the United States. Cord blood or haploidentical transplants were excluded. The median age was 68 years (range 65-77) for the older cohort vs 60 years (range 55-64) in the younger cohort. The 4-year adjusted probabilities of nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse/progression (R/P), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of the younger and older groups were 24% vs 30% (P = .03), 41% vs 42% (P = .82), 37% vs 31% (P = .03), and 51% vs 46% (P = .07), respectively. Using multivariate analysis, compared with the younger group, the older cohort was associated with increased NRM, but there was no difference between the 2 cohorts in terms of R/P, PFS, or OS. The most common cause of death was disease relapse in both groups. In NHL patients eligible for allo-HCT, there was no difference in OS between the 2 cohorts. Age alone should not determine allo-HCT eligibility in NHL, and Medicare should expand allo-HCT coverage to older adults.

Minimal Residual Disease Assessment in Lymphoma: Methods and Applications.

Standard methods for disease response assessment in patients with lymphoma, including positron emission tomography and computed tomography scans, are imperfect. In other hematologic malignancies, particularly leukemias, the ability to detect minimal residual disease (MRD) is increasingly influencing treatment paradigms. However, in many subtypes of lymphoma, the application of MRD assessment techniques, like flow cytometry or polymerase chain reaction-based methods, has been challenging because of the absence of readily detected circulating disease or canonic chromosomal translocations. Newer MRD detection methods that use next-generation sequencing have yielded promising results in a number of lymphoma subtypes, fueling the hope that MRD detection may soon be applicable in clinical practice for most patients with lymphoma. MRD assessment can provide real-time information about tumor burden and response to therapy, noninvasive genomic profiling, and monitoring of clonal dynamics, allowing for many possible applications that could significantly affect the care of patients with lymphoma. Further validation of MRD assessment methods, including the incorporation of MRD assessment into clinical trials in patients with lymphoma, will be critical to determine how best to deploy MRD testing in routine practice and whether MRD assessment can ultimately bring us closer to the goal of personalized lymphoma care. In this review article, we describe the methods available for detecting MRD in patients with lymphoma and their relative advantages and disadvantages. We discuss preliminary results supporting the potential applications for MRD testing in the care of patients with lymphoma and strategies for including MRD assessment in lymphoma clinical trials.