Mukherjee, Sudipto

Abstract Introduction: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry captures data on acute leukemias (AL) that morphologically do not conform to well characterized acute leukemic entities in the established French-American-British (FAB) nomenclature. Not much is known about population level outcomes of these rare AL. We performed a comprehensive survival analysis of these rare AL over a forty-year period using the SEER registry. Methods: SEER 18 dataset was queried to identify adult patients (pts > 18 years) diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) and rare AL from 1973-2012. Rare AL cases were identified using ICD-O-3 morphology codes and included Leukemias, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) (9800-01, 9860) and myeloid sarcoma (9930). Data on demographics,follow up and survival was abstracted. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors influencing survival of rare AL and survival patterns were compared to AML and ALL. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Results: We identified 61,550 AML pts, 13,457 ALL pts, 525 myeloid sarcoma pts and 13,446 pts with leukemia NOS. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (yrs, range 18-100) for AML, 54 yrs (18-100) for ALL, 65 yrs (18-95) for myeloid sarcoma and 76 yrs (18-100) for leukemia NOS. Gender distribution was similar with females comprising 45.9% of AML, 43% of ALL, 42.3% of myeloid sarcoma and 47.2% of leukemia NOS cases. Over 80% pts in all categories were Caucasian. Median survival was as follows: 0.4 (0-40) yrs for AML; 1.4 (0-39.8) yrs for ALL; 0.7 (0-32.9) yrs for Myeloid Sarcoma; and 0.3 (0-38.9) yrs for leukemia NOS. In univariable analysis, younger age predicted for better survival for both myeloid sarcoma and leukemia NOS (p<0.0001). Improvement in survival over time period was observed for pts with leukemia NOS (p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, advancing age was an independent prognostic factor for rare AL, both as a continuous variable and when categorized as older vs. younger pts using age cutoff of 60 yrs. Compared to younger pts, HR for pts > 60 yrs with rare AL was as follows: 2.68 (2.13-3.37; p <0.0001) for myeloid sarcoma; and 2.18 (2.07-2.31; p<0.0001) for leukemia NOS. No difference in survival over time was seen for myeloid sarcoma. Pts with leukemia, NOS diagnosed in yrs 2006-2012 (HR=0.87; 0.82-0.92; p < 0.0001) had better survival compared to the referent years 1973-80. Race and gender did not impact survival. In multivariable analysis, pts with leukemia NOS did worse overall compared to AML (HR=1.13; 1.11-1.53; p<0.0001) and ALL (HR=1.86; 1.81-1.91; p<0.0001). Interestingly, younger pts had a poorer outcome than AML (HR=1.10; 1.04-1.16; p=0.0003), but pts > 60 yrs had a better outcome (HR=0.93; 0.91-0.95; p<0.0001). Both younger (HR=1.33; 1.26-1.41; p<0.0001) and older pts (HR=1.45, 1.40-1.50: p<0.0001) compared unfavorably to ALL (Figure 1). Pts with myeloid sarcoma had a better survival compared to AML pts (HR=0.77; 0.7-0.85; p<0.0001) (Figure 2). This was uniform for pts <60 yrs (HR=0.77; 0.64-0.93; p=0.006) and > 60 yrs (HR= 0.77; 0.69-0.87; p<0.0001). Conclusion: Pts with leukemias NOS have poor outcomes compared to AML and ALL but prognosis has improved in recent years. The most probable explanation is identification of prognostic molecular mutations that has allowed accurate risk-stratification of pts using the WHO classification and in turn better selection of treatment strategies. Several reasons have limited our understanding of these rare AL - small numbers, exclusion from clinical trials and wide variability in treatment options used. Efforts at better molecular characterization of these AL holds the most promise for improving outcomes. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Castleman disease (CD) describes a group of heterogeneous hematologic disorders with characteristic histopathological features. CD can present with unicentric or multicentric (MCD) regions of lymph node enlargement. Some cases of MCD are caused by human herpesvirus-8 (HHV-8), whereas others are HHV-8–negative/idiopathic (iMCD). Treatment of iMCD is challenging, and outcomes can be poor because no uniform treatment guidelines exist, few systematic studies have been conducted, and no agreed upon response criteria have been described. The purpose of this paper is to establish consensus, evidence-based treatment guidelines based on the severity of iMCD to improve outcomes. An international Working Group of 42 experts from 10 countries was convened by the Castleman Disease Collaborative Network to establish consensus guidelines for the management of iMCD based on published literature, review of treatment effectiveness for 344 cases, and expert opinion. The anti–interleukin-6 monoclonal antibody siltuximab (or tocilizumab, if siltuximab is not available) with or without corticosteroids is the preferred first-line therapy for iMCD. In the most severe cases, adjuvant combination chemotherapy is recommended. Additional agents are recommended, tailored by disease severity, as second- and third-line therapies for treatment failures. Response criteria were formulated to facilitate the evaluation of treatment failure or success. These guidelines should help treating physicians to stratify patients based on disease severity in order to select the best available therapeutic option. An international registry for patients with CD (ACCELERATE, #NCT02817997) was established in October 2016 to collect patient outcomes to increase the evidence base for selection of therapies in the future.

Purpose To investigate the risk and outcomes of second hematologic malignancies (SHMs) in a population-based cohort of patients with well-differentiated thyroid cancer (WDTC) treated or not with radioactive iodine (RAI). Methods Patients with WDTC were identified from SEER registries. Competing risk regression analysis was performed to calculate the risks of SHMs that occurred after WDTC treatment and outcomes after SHM development were assessed. Results Of 148,215 patients with WDTC, 53% received surgery alone and 47% received RAI. In total, 783 patients developed an SHM after a median interval of 6.5 years (interquartile range, 3.3 to 11.2 years) from WDTC diagnosis. In multivariable analysis, compared with those undergoing thyroidectomy alone, RAI treatment was associated with an increased early risk of developing acute myeloid leukemia (AML; hazard ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13 to 2.82; P = .01) and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML; hazard ratio, 3.44; 95% CI, 1.87 to 6.36; P < .001). This increased risk of AML and CML after RAI treatment was seen even in low-risk and intermediate-risk WDTC tumors. Occurrence of AML but not CML in patients with WDTC was associated with shorter median overall survival compared with matched controls (8.0 years v 31.0 years; P = .001). In addition, AML developing after RAI trended toward inferior survival compared with matched controls with de novo AML (median overall survival, 1.2 years v 2.9 years; P = .06). Conclusion Patients with WDTC treated with RAI had an increased early risk of developing AML and CML but no other hematologic malignancies. AML that arises after RAI treatment has a poor prognosis. RAI use in patients with WDTC should be limited to patients with high-risk disease features, and patients with WDTC treated with adjuvant RAI should be monitored for myeloid malignancies as part of cancer surveillance.