Rosenthal, Kristen

Abstract Background: Recent approvals and clinical trials have established covalent BTK inhibitors (BTKis), including ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, and zanubrutinib, as effective agents for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma. Multiple BTKi-based regimens are recommended by experts and clinical guidelines in both the first-line and later-line settings. Additional approvals of the noncovalent BTKi pirtobrutinib and multiple CAR T-cell therapies have also advanced the management of patients who have progressed on covalent BTKi therapy. In light of these developments in treatment strategies for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), this study compares trends in treatment choice among experts and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in an online treatment decision support tool. Methods: An online decision support tool, developed with 5 US-based experts in MCL, was launched in April 2023 and updated in April 2025. The tool provided treatment recommendations for various clinical scenarios involving newly diagnosed (ND) or relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL, incorporating factors such as age, fitness, previous therapies, and response duration. HCPs entered specific patient characteristics along with their intended treatment choice. The tool then displayed expert recommendations for that scenario, and HCPs were asked whether these recommendations influenced their treatment decision. HCP-entered data and expert recommendations were analyzed to identify common trends and divergence in current BTKi therapy use. Results: The 2023 online tool was used by 119 HCPs who entered 148 patient scenarios, and the 2025 online tool was used by 69 HCPs who entered 96 patient scenarios. In 2023, for patients with ND MCL who had later-stage disease or were not eligible for radiation therapy (n = 75), 64% of expert-recommended treatments included BTKis, with the ECHO and TRIANGLE regimens representing 12% and 17% of recommendations, respectively. In 2025, 81% of expert recommendations were BTKi-based regimens, with ≥3 experts recommending a BTKi regimen in 66 of 67 unique ND case scenarios. The ECHO and TRIANGLE regimen each represented 28% to 29% of expert recommendations. In addition, 51% of recommendations for patients with 17p deletions or TP53 mutations consisted of the BOVen regimen. The percentage of HCPs who indicated that they were considering a BTKi-based regimen in the setting of ND MCL was 17% (13 of 75 ND cases) in 2023 and 66% (44 of 67 ND cases) in 2025. The use of both the ECHO and TRIANGLE regimens by HCPs increased from 5% and 4%, respectively, in 2023 to 19% for each in 2025. In 2025, 6% of HCPs considered the BOVen regimen for patients with TP53 mutation (n = 17). In 2023 and 2025, approximately 50% of the HCP-entered patient cases for previously treated MCL had not received a BTKi (n = 48 and n = 18, respectively). For these scenarios, 94% and 98% of expert recommendations consisted of covalent BTKis in 2023 and 2025, respectively. HCPs selected covalent BTKis for 68% of cases in 2023 and 89% of cases in 2025. For patients with R/R MCL previously treated with a BTKi, CAR T-cell therapy represented 36% of expert recommendations in 2023 (23 scenarios) and 60% in 2025 (18 scenarios). By contrast, 4% and 11% of HCPs considered CAR T-cell therapy for these patients in 2023 and 2025, respectively. For HCPs reporting on the tool's clinical impact (n = 96), 35% indicated expert recommendations changed their intended therapy, 41% stated their treatment plan matched the recommendations, 10% cited barriers to implementing recommendations, and 14% remained undecided on optimal treatment. Conclusions:This analysis highlights the ongoing adoption of expert-recommended treatments into real-world clinical practice. Our data suggest that expert and HCP use of BTKi therapy in the ND MCL setting has increased in recent years. In R/R MCL, CAR T-cell therapy appears to be considered infrequently by HCPs. Barriers to implementation of expert recommendations warrant further investigation. Enhanced decision support tools and targeted educational initiatives could help increase the use of expert treatment recommendations and potentially improve patient outcomes.

Background: The management of multiple myeloma (MM) continues to evolve with the emergence of new classes of therapy, most recently including BCMA-targeted therapies. Considering the expanding MM treatment armamentarium, we sought to identify contemporary practice patterns among healthcare professionals (HCPs) for MM and compare them with those of experts using an online decision support tool. Methods: An online decision support tool was developed with input from 5 experts providing therapy recommendations for 192 unique patient case scenarios based on considerations including disease setting, treatment history, access to therapy, and specific comorbidities. HCP tool users entered specific patient criteria to define a case along with their intended management for that case. The tool then showed the 5 expert recommendations for that same case scenario, and users were asked if the recommendations impacted their intended approach. An analysis of expert recommendations and user-selected therapy was performed. Results: Between April 2023 and July 2023, 207 patient cases were entered by 144 participating HCPs. HCP and expert treatment recommendations were frequently discordant, regardless of treatment setting (Table). The highest concordance between HCP and expert recommendations (47%; P <.0001) was in the induction setting (n = 111). In this setting, experts were more likely to recommend quadruplet regimens compared with HCPs (62% vs 27%, respectively; P <.0001). Treatment selection concordance was lower in the maintenance (n = 17; 24%; P <.0001) and relapsed/refractory settings (n = 79; 20%; P <.0001). The lowest concordance (10%; P <.0001) between HCP and expert treatment recommendations was noted in the relapsed/refractory setting specifically among patients who were refractory to earlier lines of therapy (n = 41; P <.0001). For patients who are refractory to earlier lines of therapy, experts were more likely to recommend an anti-CD38-based combination regimen compared with HCPs (81% vs 32; P <.0001). When recommending treatment for patients with triple- or penta-refractory disease, experts were significantly more likely to recommend BCMA-targeted agents (83% vs 39%; P <.0001). For HCPs whose treatment plan did not match expert recommendations in these scenarios, 53% of respondents indicated that expert recommendations confirmed or changed their intended therapy, but 31% indicated that there were barriers to implementing those recommendations. Conclusions: These data suggest ongoing challenges with incorporating the newest therapies and combinations across the spectrum of MM into patient care, particularly multidrug regimens in the induction and maintenance settings and BCMA-targeted therapies in those with triple- or penta-refractory disease. Continued education and development of resources for HCPs, including online decision support tools, may be increasingly important as the treatment of MM continues to grow in complexity.

Introduction MCL is a rare cancer, and current clinical practice guidelines list multiple reasonable treatment options for MCL. It can be challenging to select treatment (Tx) that optimizes outcomes for patients with a mixture of presenting features. In 2014, we developed an online MCL decision support tool designed to provide expert guidance on optimal treatment for defined patient scenarios. An analysis of the 2014 tool showed that Tx recommendations of community healthcare providers (HCPs) did not consistently align with experts for many patients with MCL (Gopalsamy, et al. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019 Mar 8:1-9). Here we report data from an updated version (2018) of this tool that captures evolving practice patterns among experts and community HCPs and the differences between these 2 groups. Methods In September 2018, a panel of 5 experts provided Tx recommendations for 240 patient scenarios in newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MCL. These distinct scenarios were defined by patient and disease characteristics that the experts considered important when making treatment choices, including disease setting, patient age and fitness, cytogenetic information, LDH and Ki67 levels, and information on any previous lines of therapy. To use the tool, HCPs entered specific patient/disease characteristics using expert-defined options along with the Tx planned for each case. The users were then shown the 5 MCL expert recommendations and were asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on their planned Tx approach. Results A total of 387 HCPs entered 654 patient scenarios in the 2018 online tool. For HCPs who answered an optional question on how many patients with MCL they treat per year (n = 145), 81% indicated that they treated 10 or fewer patients with MCL per year, highlighting the rarity of this disease and lack of experience among many HCPs. Furthermore, 74% of these HCPs indicated that they refer < 50% of their patients with MCL for clinical trials or to academic institutions for treatment. Among experts, the primary consensus for initial Tx recommendations for younger, fit patients with MCL were bendamustine/rituximab (BR) and R-HyperCVAD in both 2014 and 2018. In comparison, HCPs chose these 2 regimens for a minority of these patients with newly diagnosed MCL in both editions of the tool. For older or unfit patients, experts predominantly recommended BR (85% in 2014 and 75% in 2018), whereas only 35% to 40% of HCPs would choose this regimen in this setting (Table). Of note, nearly 20% of the HCPs indicated that they would recommend a very aggressive chemotherapy regimen for older or unfit patients. For patients with disease progression after chemoimmunotherapy, the recommendation of ibrutinib-based therapy increased among experts from 2014 to 2018 from 66% to 100%. By contrast, the percentage of HCPs using ibrutinib-based therapy remained low at 29% or 37% in the 2014 and 2018 tools, respectively. Another 14% of HCPs selected acalabrutinib, another approved BTK inhibitor, in 2018. In addition, approximately 20% of HCPs in both 2014 and 2018 were unsure of the optimal use of additional therapy (eg, ASCT or maintenance therapy) for their patients. Among users who answered an optional question on the tool's clinical impact, 47% indicated the expert recommendations changed their planned Tx and 38% indicated that expert recommendations confirmed their approach. Conclusions The analysis of data from this online tool found several areas of expert consensus regarding Tx for patients with MCL, particularly for patients who are progressing after initial chemoimmunotherapy. However, practice patterns of community HCPs did not align with expert recommendations for the majority of cases entered into the tool. The consistent Tx gap between practice patterns of community HCPs and expert recommendations over this time period suggests a continued need for online decision tools like this and other innovative approaches to involve experts in the care of patients with MCL. A detailed comparison of expert and user data from the online tool will be presented. Disclosures Ansell: LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Leonard:Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Nordic Nanovector: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer Corporation: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sutro Biopharma: Consultancy; Epizyme, Inc: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Akcea Therapeutics: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Wang:BioInvent: Consultancy, Research Funding; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Aviara: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; VelosBio: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Guidepoint Global: Consultancy; MoreHealth: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Loxo Oncology: Research Funding. Flowers:BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; V Foundation: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Research Funding; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group: Research Funding; National Cancer Institute: Research Funding; Optimum Rx: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy.

Abstract From 2013-2017, numerous new approvals and expanded indications have dramatically changed the treatment (tx) landscape for MM. Since that time, experienced MM physicians from leading academic institutions and cancer centers (experts) have annually updated and contributed tx recommendations for an online decision support tool designed to provide healthcare providers (HCPs) with patient-specific tx guidance. This MM tool is freely available online at www.clinicaloptions.com/myelomatool and HCPs can use the tool to enter details of a patient case, indicate their intended tx plan, and then expert tx recommendations for that case are provided. Methods This study includes analysis of tx recommendations from 5 MM experts for 270 unique MM case scenarios made during development of the 2018 update to this tool. We also aim to compare the evolving tx recommendations among the experts over time, from 2013-2017, and to determine practice patterns of HCPs using the tool over the same time span. Results Based on analysis of these annually updated MM tools, consensus (≥ 3 of 5 experts choosing the same tx for the same case) among experts has been increasing for induction tx since 2013. In ASCT-eligible patients with no specific comorbidities, experts recommended bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone (VRd) in 100% and 90% of tool cases in 2018 and 2017, respectively, which increased from 65% to 75% consensus in 2013-2015. In previous analyses, the percentage of HCPs using VRd has also increased, albeit more slowly than with experts. In 2017, 42% of HCPs indicated that they are using VRd as induction in this setting compared with 22% in 2015-2016 and 9% in 2014-2015. For ASCT-ineligible patients with ECOG > 2 but no specific comorbidities, all 5 experts recommend triplet therapy for all cases regardless of risk in 2018, but in 2017, 3 of 5 recommended triplet therapy and 2 of 5 recommended doublets for normal-risk disease. Expert recommendations for induction change, however, based on specific patient comorbidities. For patients with peripheral neuropathy, 4 of 5 experts recommended carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone instead of VRd. For patients with renal insufficiency, 4 of 5 experts recommended bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone. For patients with cardiac dysfunction, all 5 experts continue to recommend VRd for patients with ECOG ≤ 2 while 2 of 5 change from VRd to Rd for patients with ECOG > 2. For patients who achieve VGPR or better to induction, all 5 experts recommend lenalidomide maintenance for standard risk disease. But for patients with high risk disease who achieve VGPR or better to induction, 3 of 5 experts recommend bortezomib/lenalidomide combination maintenance therapy regardless of induction regimen, 1 expert recommends single-agent bortezomib regardless of induction regimen, and 1 expert recommends bortezomib after a PI-based induction regimen or lenalidomide for an IMiD or IMiD/PI-based induction regimen. In the 2018 tool update, the number of R/R case scenarios with 100% expert consensus increased over previous years: 20% of cases had all 5 experts agreeing on tx vs 12% in 2017. In addition, 29% of cases had 3 of 5 experts agreeing and 8% had 2 pairs of experts agreeing in 2018 vs none with 3 of 5 experts agreeing and 21% with 2 pairs of experts agreeing in 2017. In 2018, experts recommended daratumumab/pomalidomide/dexamethasone all cases with 100% consensus, which comprises patients who are refractory to multiple agents including lenalidomide, bortezomib, and/or carfilzomib. Overall, 23 different regimens were recommended for R/R MM; and additional majority expert consensus included daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone, daratumumab/carfilzomib/dexamethasone, and carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Table 1). Conclusions Practice patterns are changing rapidly and are more complex, particularly in the R/R setting, in response to the evolving tx landscape for MM. This analysis highlights several areas of expert consensus, but disparities remain for select cases. The newest approved therapies continue to have a strong impact on experts' recommendations as they have been fully integrated into their tx approaches. These analyses provide a real-time assessment of changing tx patterns among experts as well as HCPs. We will present analyses of cases entered in the 2018 online tool by HCPs and detailed comparisons of expert and the intended tx of clinicians using the tool. Disclosures Ghobrial: Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Lonial:Amgen: Research Funding. Raje:Research to Practice: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Medscape: Honoraria. Kumar:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Background In 2015, the FDA approved 5 new agents and/or combination regimens for the treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) MM. In addition, new clinical data support using new regimens in the first-line setting. This rapid expansion of available treatment options has greatly increased the complexity of treatment decisions for patients in this disease setting. Clinical practice guidelines list multiple preferred treatment options for MM and can be challenging to apply to specific patients with a mixture of presenting features. Since 2013, we have developed and updated an MM online decision support tool designed to provide clinicians with expert guidance on optimal treatment for defined patient scenarios. An analysis of the tool over the years has shown that experts rapidly integrate new data and available agents into practice whereas many tool users do not. Here we report data from the most recent version (2016) of this tool, capturing the impact of the rapid expansion of new therapies on expert treatment recommendations. Methods In June 2016, a panel of 5 experts provided treatment recommendations for 688 case scenarios across 3 settings: induction, maintenance, and R/R disease. These distinct scenarios were defined by key patient and disease characteristics that the experts considered important when making treatment choices, including: eligibility for autologous stem cell transplantation, results of chromosome analysis (cytogenetics/FISH), ECOG performance status, previous therapy and response, and preexisting comorbidities. To use the tool, these patient and disease factors and the intended treatment for that specific patient were entered through drop-down menus to display the expert choices for that case. Users were then asked to indicate the impact of the expert recommendations on planned treatment. Results We compared expert recommendations from the 2 most recent versions of our MM tool, compiled in March 2015 and June 2016, to assess the impact of the new data and FDA approvals on treatment patterns. The experts are generally not recommending these agents as induction or maintenance therapy. Three out of 5 experts recommended carfilzomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone as induction therapy for preexisting peripheral neuropathy (PN) and 1 expert recommended ixazomib-based regimens as induction and maintenance therapy for patients with high-risk cytogenetics and both renal insufficiency and PN. The new agents did have a substantial impact on expert recommendation in the R/R setting. In the 2016 tool, the type of previous therapy was the primary factor affecting expert selections, whereas the number of previous lines of therapy (1-3 vs >3) had minimal impact in the R/R setting. For example, in patients refractory to previous proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, regimens containing either elotuzumab (30%) or daratumumab (25%) were selected frequently by experts with pomalidomide-containing regimens recommended in another 40% of these specific cases. In the 2016 tool, the use of lenalidomide/dexamethasone alone without a newly approved agent was not recommended by any expert in the R/R setting, although it had been recommended by experts in 25% of R/R case scenarios in the 2015 tool. For patient scenarios refractory to previous immunomodulatory drugs and PIs, the experts recommended daratumumab-based regimens in 67.5% of the cases in the 2016 tool whereas the use of carfilzomib/pomalidomide/dexamethasone fell from 45% in 2015 to 10% of the cases in 2016. None of the experts recommended regimens with panobinostat as their preferred choice in any patient scenario in either 2015 or 2016. Conclusions Expert opinions regarding optimal MM therapy continue to evolve with new evidence and FDA approvals. Our data show that newly approved therapies are having a large impact on expert recommendations for specific case scenarios in the relapsed/refractory MM setting. A detailed and updated analysis of expert and user data that captures practice trends in this rapidly evolving environment will be presented. Disclosures Kumar: Kesios: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Onyx: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Skyline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Noxxon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Lentzsch:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy. Lonial:Merck: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Onyx: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy. Roodman:Amgen: Consultancy. Anderson:Oncopep: Other: Scientific Founder; Acetylon: Other: Scientific Founder; Sonofi Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.