De novo accelerated phase of chronic myeloid leukemia should be recognized even in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Overall survival of patients classified according to the European LeukemiaNet 2020 classification. Chronic phase (CP), accelerated phase (AP), blast crisis (BC), low risk (LR), intermediate risk (IR), high risk (HR).

Secondary malignancies and survival of FCR-treated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Central Europe.

This is the first large-scale cross-country analysis of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) aimed to evaluate the incidence, types, and key prognostic factors of secondary malignancies, and to assess the impact on overall survival based on retrospective claims data from three Central European countries. We analyzed 25,814 newly diagnosed CLL patients from Czechia, Hungary, and Poland; 10,312 (39.9%) patients were treated for CLL in study periods between 2004 and 2016. Out of the treated patients, 1986 (19.3%) received the FCR therapy in the first line and 779 (7.6%) received FCR in subsequent lines. We observed that 33.7% of treated patients developed secondary malignancies during the study. Based on country estimates, the probability to develop a secondary malignancy within 4 years since starting the first-line FCR therapy ranged between 28.0% and 36.8%. We found the age at diagnosis, male gender, any malignancy prior to the CLL diagnosis, and the CLL treatment to be the key risk factors for developing secondary malignancies. Specifically, the FCR therapy was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) prognostic factor for risk increase with the hazard ratio between 1.46 and 1.60. Across the three Central European countries, we observed consistent results indicating FCR increased the risk of secondary malignancies in CLL patients. We conclude that secondary malignancies are clearly an undervalued burden for CLL patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system. When evaluating new therapies in regulatory and reimbursement decision making, the factor of secondary malignancies deserves deeper considerations.

Assessing the impact of antiemetic guideline compliance on prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: Results of the nausea/emesis registry in oncology (NERO).

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based antiemetic guidelines offer predominantly consistent recommendations for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) prophylaxis. However, studies suggest that adherence to these recommendations is suboptimal. We explored inconsistencies between clinical practice and guideline-recommended treatment with a registry evaluating the effect of guideline-consistent CINV prophylaxis (GCCP) on patient outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, non-interventional, multicentre study. The primary objective was to assess the overall (Days 1-5) complete response (CR: no emesis/no rescue use) rates in patients who received GCCP or guideline-inconsistent CINV prophylaxis (GICP) using diaries for 5 days following chemotherapy. Cycle 1 results are presented in patients who received either (1) anthracycline/cyclophosphamide (AC) highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC), non-AC HEC or carboplatin, with GCCP for all these groups consisting of prophylaxis with an NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy or (2) moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC), with GCCP consisting of a 5-HT3RA and dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy as per MASCC/ESMO 2016 guidelines, in place at the time of the study. RESULTS: 1,089 patients were part of the cycle 1 efficacy evaluation. Overall GCCP was 23%. CR rates were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in patients receiving GCCP (62.2%) versus GICP (52.6%) in the overall population, as well as in the subsets of patients receiving AC/non-AC HEC (60.2% versus 47.8%), MEC (73.8% versus 57.8%) and in those non-naïve to the chemotherapy received (65.9% versus 53.8%). No impact on daily living due to CINV (FLIE assessment) was observed in 43.4% patients receiving GCCP versus 28.5% GICP (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Consistent with prior studies, GCCP was very low; a significant benefit of almost 10% improved prevention of CINV was observed with GCCP. As per MASCC/ESMO guidelines, such an absolute difference should be practice changing. Comprehensive multifaceted strategies are needed to achieve better adherence to antiemetic guidelines.