Safety of bendamustine for the treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a UK real-world experience.

ABSTRACT: Bendamustine is among the most effective chemotherapeutics for indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL), but trial reports of significant toxicity, including opportunistic infections and excess deaths, led to prescriber warnings. We conducted a multicenter observational study evaluating bendamustine toxicity in real-world practice. Patients receiving at least 1 dose of bendamustine with/without rituximab (R) for iNHL were included. Demographics, lymphoma and treatment details, and grade 3 to 5 adverse events (AEs) were analyzed and correlated. In total, 323 patients were enrolled from 9 National Health Service hospitals. Most patients (96%) received bendamustine-R, and 46%, R maintenance. Overall, 21.7% experienced serious AEs (SAE) related to treatment, including infections in 12%, with absolute risk highest during induction (63%), maintenance (20%), and follow-up (17%) and the relative risk highest during maintenance (54%), induction (34%), and follow-up (28%). Toxicity led to permanent treatment discontinuation for 13% of patients, and 2.8% died of bendamustine-related infections (n = 5), myelodysplastic syndrome (n = 3), and cardiac disease (n = 1). More SAEs per patient were reported in patients with mantle cell lymphoma, poor preinduction performance status (PS), poor premaintenance PS, and abnormal preinduction total globulins and in those receiving growth factors. Use of antimicrobial prophylaxis was variable, and 3 of 10 opportunistic infections occurred despite prophylaxis. In this real-world analysis, bendamustine-related deaths and treatment discontinuation were similar to those of trial populations of younger, fitter patients. Poor PS, mantle cell histology, and maintenance R were potential risk factors. Infections, including late onset events, were the most common treatment-related SAE and cause of death, warranting extended antimicrobial prophylaxis and infectious surveillance, especially for maintenance-treated patients.

Ibrutinib as first-line therapy for mantle cell lymphoma: a multicenter, real-world UK study.

ABSTRACT: During the COVID-19 pandemic, ibrutinib with or without rituximab was approved in England for initial treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) instead of immunochemotherapy. Because limited data are available in this setting, we conducted an observational cohort study evaluating safety and efficacy. Adults receiving ibrutinib with or without rituximab for untreated MCL were evaluated for treatment toxicity, response, and survival, including outcomes in high-risk MCL (TP53 mutation/deletion/p53 overexpression, blastoid/pleomorphic, or Ki67 ≥ 30%). A total of 149 patients from 43 participating centers were enrolled: 74.1% male, median age 75 years, 75.2% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0 to 1, 36.2% high-risk, and 8.9% autologous transplant candidates. All patients received ≥1 cycle ibrutinib (median, 8 cycles), 39.0% with rituximab. Grade ≥3 toxicity occurred in 20.3%, and 33.8% required dose reductions/delays. At 15.6-month median follow-up, 41.6% discontinued ibrutinib, 8.1% due to toxicity. Of 104 response-assessed patients, overall (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates were 71.2% and 20.2%, respectively. ORR was 77.3% (low risk) vs 59.0% (high risk) (P = .05) and 78.7% (ibrutinib-rituximab) vs 64.9% (ibrutinib; P = .13). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 26.0 months (all patients); 13.7 months (high risk) vs not reached (NR) (low risk; hazard ratio [HR], 2.19; P = .004). Median overall survival was NR (all); 14.8 months (high risk) vs NR (low risk; HR, 2.36; P = .005). Median post-ibrutinib survival was 1.4 months, longer in 41.9% patients receiving subsequent treatment (median, 8.6 vs 0.6 months; HR, 0.36; P = .002). Ibrutinib with or without rituximab was effective and well tolerated as first-line treatment of MCL, including older and transplant-ineligible patients. PFS and OS were significantly inferior in one-third of patients with high-risk disease and those unsuitable for post-ibrutinib treatment, highlighting the need for novel approaches in these groups.

Outlier detection of vital sign trajectories from COVID-19 patients.

In this work, we present a novel trajectory comparison algorithm to identify abnormal vital sign trends, with the aim of improving recognition of deteriorating health.There is growing interest in continuous wearable vital sign sensors for monitoring patients remotely at home. These monitors are usually coupled to an alerting system, which is triggered when vital sign measurements fall outside a predefined normal range. Trends in vital signs, such as increasing heart rate, are often indicative of deteriorating health, but are rarely incorporated into alerting systems.We introduce a dynamic time warp distance-based measure to compare time series trajectories. We split each multi-variable sign time series into 180 minute, non-overlapping epochs. We then calculate the distance between all pairs of epochs. Each epoch is characterized by its mean pairwise distance (average link distance) to all other epochs, with clusters forming with nearby epochs.We demonstrate in synthetically generated data that this method can identify abnormal epochs and cluster epochs with similar trajectories. We then apply this method to a real-world data set of vital signs from 8 patients who had recently been discharged from hospital after contracting COVID-19. We show how outlier epochs correspond well with the abnormal vital signs and identify patients who were subsequently readmitted to hospital.

An International Comparison of Presentation, Outcomes and CORONET Predictive Score Performance in Patients with Cancer Presenting with COVID-19 across Different Pandemic Waves.

Patients with cancer have been shown to have increased risk of COVID-19 severity. We previously built and validated the COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) to predict the likely severity of COVID-19 in patients with active cancer who present to hospital. We assessed the differences in presentation and outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19, depending on the wave of the pandemic. We examined differences in features at presentation and outcomes in patients worldwide, depending on the waves of the pandemic: wave 1 D614G (n = 1430), wave 2 Alpha (n = 475), and wave 4 Omicron variant (n = 63, UK and Spain only). The performance of CORONET was evaluated on 258, 48, and 54 patients for each wave, respectively. We found that mortality rates were reduced in subsequent waves. The majority of patients were vaccinated in wave 4, and 94% were treated with steroids if they required oxygen. The stages of cancer and the median ages of patients significantly differed, but features associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes remained predictive and did not differ between waves. The CORONET tool performed well in all waves, with scores in an area under the curve (AUC) of >0.72. We concluded that patients with cancer who present to hospital with COVID-19 have similar features of severity, which remain discriminatory despite differences in variants and vaccination status. Survival improved following the first wave of the pandemic, which may be associated with vaccination and the increased steroid use in those patients requiring oxygen. The CORONET model demonstrated good performance, independent of the SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Establishment of CORONET, COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool, to Identify Patients With Cancer at Low Versus High Risk of Severe Complications of COVID-19 Disease On Presentation to Hospital.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease, but have heterogeneous presentations and outcomes. Decision-making tools for hospital admission, severity prediction, and increased monitoring for early intervention are critical. We sought to identify features of COVID-19 disease in patients with cancer predicting severe disease and build a decision support online tool, COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET). METHODS: Patients with active cancer (stage I-IV) and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 disease presenting to hospitals worldwide were included. Discharge (within 24 hours), admission (≥ 24 hours inpatient), oxygen (O2) requirement, and death were combined in a 0-3 point severity scale. Association of features with outcomes were investigated using Lasso regression and Random Forest combined with Shapley Additive Explanations. The CORONET model was then examined in the entire cohort to build an online CORONET decision support tool. Admission and severe disease thresholds were established through pragmatically defined cost functions. Finally, the CORONET model was validated on an external cohort. RESULTS: The model development data set comprised 920 patients, with median age 70 (range 5-99) years, 56% males, 44% females, and 81% solid versus 19% hematologic cancers. In derivation, Random Forest demonstrated superior performance over Lasso with lower mean squared error (0.801 v 0.807) and was selected for development. During validation (n = 282 patients), the performance of CORONET varied depending on the country cohort. CORONET cutoffs for admission and mortality of 1.0 and 2.3 were established. The CORONET decision support tool recommended admission for 95% of patients eventually requiring oxygen and 97% of those who died (94% and 98% in validation, respectively). The specificity for mortality prediction was 92% and 83% in derivation and validation, respectively. Shapley Additive Explanations revealed that National Early Warning Score 2, C-reactive protein, and albumin were the most important features contributing to COVID-19 severity prediction in patients with cancer at time of hospital presentation. CONCLUSION: CORONET, a decision support tool validated in health care systems worldwide, can aid admission decisions and predict COVID-19 severity in patients with cancer.

Potential utility of liquid biopsies in the management of patients with biliary tract cancers: A review.

Biliary tract cancer, comprising gallbladder cancer, cholangiocarcinoma and ampullary cancer, represents a more uncommon entity outside high-endemic areas, though global incidence is rising. The majority of patients present at a late stage, and 5-year survival remains poor. Advanced stage disease is incurable, and though palliative chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival, further diagnostic and therapeutic options are required in order to improve patient outcomes. Although certain subtypes of biliary tract cancer are relatively rich in targetable mutations, attaining tumour tissue for histological diagnosis and treatment monitoring is challenging due to locoregional anatomical constraints and patient fitness. Liquid biopsies offer a safe and convenient alternative to invasive procedures and have great potential as diagnostic, predictive and prognostic biomarkers. In this review, the current standard of care for patients with biliary tract cancer, future treatment horizons and the possible utility of liquid biopsies within a variety of contexts will be discussed. Circulating tumour DNA, circulating microRNA and circulating tumour cells are discussed with an overview of their potential applications in management of biliary tract cancer. A summary is also provided of currently recruiting clinical trials incorporating liquid biopsies within biliary tract cancer research.

Patient engagement in melanoma research: from bench to bedside.

Advances in research have transformed the management of melanoma in the past decade. In parallel, patient advocacy has gained traction, and funders are increasingly prioritizing patient and public involvement. Here we discuss the ways in which patients and the public can be engaged in different stages of the research process, from developing, prioritizing and refining the research question to preclinical studies and clinical trials, then finally to ongoing research in the clinic. We discuss the challenges and opportunities that exist at each stage in order to ensure that a representative population of patients and the public contribute to melanoma research both now and in the future.

Haematological malignancy and nosocomial transmission are associated with an increased risk of death from COVID-19: results of a multi-center UK cohort.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a disruptive event for cancer patients, especially those with haematological malignancies (HM). They may experience a more severe clinical course due to impaired immune responses. This multi-center retrospective UK audit identified cancer patients who had SARS-CoV-2 infection between 1 March and 10 June 2020 and collected data pertaining to cancer history, COVID-19 presentation and outcomes. In total, 179 patients were identified with a median age of 72 (IQR 61, 81) and follow-up of 44 days (IQR 42, 45). Forty-one percent were female and the overall mortality was 37%. Twenty-nine percent had HM and of these, those treated with chemotherapy in the preceding 28 days to COVID-19 diagnosis had worse outcome compared with solid malignancy (SM): 62% versus 19% died [HR 8.33 (95% CI, 2.56-25), p < 0.001]. Definite or probable nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission accounted for 16% of cases and was associated with increased risk of death (HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.43-4.29, p = 0.001). Patients with haematological malignancies and those who acquire nosocomial transmission are at increased risk of death. Therefore, there is an urgent need to reassess shielding advice, reinforce stringent infection control, and ensure regular patient and staff testing to prevent nosocomial transmission.