Citations

Abstract Background. Gene mutation profiling is increasingly employed for diagnosis, risk stratification, and clinical management in patients with MDS. However, current World Health Organization MDS classification is still based on histologic findings (with the exception of SF3B1 for MDS-RS), and guidelines generally suggest that clinical decisions be guided by clinico-pathologic risk stratification tools such as Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R). We sought to study beliefs and patterns of practice with respect to gene mutation profiling among health care providers who manage patients with MDS. Methods. A link to a 23-question web-based survey was emailed to members of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance), and the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), and the Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU) on 5/1/2018 with 6 subsequent weekly reminders. The Qualtrics survey platform was used to record anonymous responses. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the data. No incentive was provided for responses. Results. Of 371 received responses, 262 were received from providers who did not manage MDS patients or lacked analyzable data and therefore were excluded. Of 109 eligible responses, 108 responders were from institutions representing 31 US states (one respondent was from South America). Median age of respondents was 48 years (range, 33-75); 43 (39%) were women. A third of responders (32%) worked at a university hospital, while 25%, 17%, and 5% worked at a community hospital, private practice, or other settings, respectively. While 37% of participants worked at institutions with guidelines for clinical care of MDS patients, 28% reported that their institutional guidelines recommended MDS-specific gene mutation profiling. Such testing was performed at institutions of 13% participants; institutions of 26% of responders tested a general AML panel that included MDS-specific genes. The total number of respondents whose institutions sent out either an MDS-specific gene panel or a general AML gene panel with MDS-specific genes was similar, 25% and 12%, respectively (Fig. 1). Of those who routinely perform molecular testing, 94% do so at diagnosis, 56% at relapse, 33% during preparation for stem cell transplant, 31% after the failure of hypomethylating agents (HMA), 24% during screening for a clinical trial, and 15% at initial treatment (Fig. 2). MDS gene mutation profiling was felt to be most helpful in diagnosis (rarely 11%; sometimes 49%; often 30%; always 9%), risk stratification (sometimes 31%; often 51%; always 15%), and prognosis (sometimes 31%; often 51%; always 14%); its role was more limited in response assessment (never 12%; rarely 25%; sometimes 44%; often 14%) and to predict responses to HMAs (never 5%; rarely 28%; sometimes 52%, often 14%) (Fig. 3). Various types of evidence were used to stratify MDS risk and prognosis: genetic mutations were used by nearly everyone (95%); 70% relied on morphologic findings, while gene expression/transcriptome profiling was used by 40%. Eighty-four percent of responders reported relying on conventional prognostic models like IPSS-R to identify high-risk patients for whom they would consider intensive treatment options. For this purpose, 62% would also rely on mutation profiling, and 32% would also consider higher frequency of gene mutations. While mutations in the p53 pathway were felt to be helpful in terms of risk stratification and treatment decisions by 70% of responders, 43%, 39%, 31%, 26% 23%, 20%, and 3% considered mutations in spliceosome, DNA methylation, transcription factors, histone modification, signaling, RAS pathway, and cohesin genes, respectively, to be useful as well. Approximately 31% of responders were not certain as to which mutations would affect risk stratification and management choices and said they needed to review literature. The respondents also cited multiple limitations to wider clinical use of MDS gene mutation profiling (Fig. 4). Conclusions. Our survey demonstrates widespread use of gene mutation profiling in the management of patients with MDS, but also reveals substantial variability in beliefs, practices, testing logistics, and interpretation of molecular profiling. Our findings emphasize the need for high-quality data to develop consensus evidence-based guidelines for gene profiling of MDS patients. Disclosures Sekeres: Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bejar:AbbVie/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Astex/Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Modus Outcomes: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genoptix: Consultancy. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.

Abstract Background. Transfusion of blood products is an integral component of the management of patients with acute leukemias. However, high-quality evidence and clinical trial data to support specific practices of blood product transfusion in this population are limited. We hypothesized that there is wide variation in blood product transfusion practices among providers in North America who manage patients with acute leukemia. Methods. A 30-question web-based survey about transfusion practices was emailed to members of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance), and the Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG), and the Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU) on 7/6/2015 with 4 subsequent weekly reminders. The distribution list included 9,859 recipients, of whom at least 741 were providers who treated patients with acute leukemia. Responses were anonymous, and the survey distribution was approved by the respective cooperative group chairs. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results. Of 254 responses received, 113 were excluded as they were returned by recipients not directly treating patients with acute leukemia. Another 30 responses were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 111 responses (43.7%) eligible for the primary analysis. Of those, 109 responders were from North America representing 83 institutions in 33 states and the province of Ontario. Eighty-four of the included responders (75.7%) were physicians, and 44 (39.6%) were females. Median age of responders was 44 years (range, 26-76). A hemoglobin (Hb) level of ≤7 g/dL was the most commonly used threshold (44%) for red blood cell (RBCs) transfusions to asymptomatic stable hospitalized patients, followed closely by 8 g/dL (38%) (Figure 1). In the outpatient setting, the most commonly reported threshold was 8 gm/dL (49%) (Figure 1). Most providers reported that they "always" use leukocyte-reduced (93%) and irradiated (79%) RBCs. A platelet level of 10,000/µL was the threshold for platelet transfusions in the stable non-bleeding hospitalized patients cited by the majority of responders (76%) (Figure 2). This platelet level remained the most common threshold for platelet transfusions for non-bleeding patients in the outpatient setting (49%), although 31% of responders reported a higher threshold of 20,000/µL. A preference for single-donor apheresis platelets was reported by 81% respondents, and 57% use these products exclusively. Most providers (70%) reported always using irradiated platelets. With respect to cryoprecipitate and plasma infusions, nearly half of the respondents reported a threshold fibrinogen level of 100 mg/dL as a trigger for administering a product to a stable non-bleeding patient (Figure 3). The most commonly reported platelet threshold for performing a bone marrow biopsy (BMB) was 10,000/μL (69% of responders), followed by 20,000 (21%), 50,000 (6%), and 30,000 (4%). Therapeutic anticoagulation was held by most responders (80%) before performing a BMB. Most responders (73%) reported a platelet level of 50,000/µL as the lowest level for performing a lumbar puncture (LP) without prophylactic platelet transfusion. Conclusions. This survey demonstrates wide variability in blood product transfusion patterns among providers who treat patients with acute leukemias. A platelet level of 10,000/µL is the most common trigger for platelet transfusions for stable non-bleeding patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings. This, along with a platelet threshold of 50,000/µL for performing an LP, appear to be most widely accepted practices. Our findings emphasize the need to obtain high-quality data to develop consensus evidence-based guidelines for transfusion practices in acute leukemia with the goal of limiting unnecessary transfusions without compromising patient outcomes. Figure 1. The most common reported hemoglobin level thresholds for red blood cell transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 1. The most common reported hemoglobin level thresholds for red blood cell transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 2. The most common reported platelet level thresholds for platelet transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 2. The most common reported platelet level thresholds for platelet transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 3. The most common reported fibrinogen level thresholds for cryoprecipitate or plasma transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Figure 3. The most common reported fibrinogen level thresholds for cryoprecipitate or plasma transfusions in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Disclosures Sekeres: TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Steensma:Onconova: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Prebet:CELGENE: Research Funding. Komrokji:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incite: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Research Funding. Stone:Merck: Consultancy; AROG: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB for clinical trial; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche/Genetech: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Erba:GlycoMimetics; Janssen: Other: Data Safety & Monitoring Committees; Sunesis; Pfizer; Daiichi Sankyo; Ariad: Consultancy; Millennium/Takeda; Celator; Astellas: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis; Incyte; Celgene: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties. Barbarotta:Celgene, BMS, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract On behalf of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in 2-12% of patients with acute leukemia (AL) despite disease and therapy-associated thrombocytopenia, and can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Due to limited high-quality studies, there are no evidence-based guidelines for VTE prophylaxis in this patient population. Based on our experience and the lack of consensus guidelines, we hypothesized that there would be a wide range in provider practice regarding methods of VTE prevention in patients with AL. To determine the current individual practices in North America, we devised a web-based survey of VTE prophylaxis practice among clinicians caring for patients with AL. Methods: An anonymous 19 question web-based survey, approved by the Johns Hopkins Institutional Review Board, was distributed by email to members of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group on 10/22/14. Four reminders were sent at two-week intervals with the survey closing on 12/8/14. Results: Of the total 215 respondents, 64 were excluded for the following reasons: 52 did not directly manage medical care of AL patients, 3 referred AL patients to other centers, 5 left blank responses to all questions regarding VTE prophylaxis, 1 was a duplicate entry, and 3 described their position as support or office staff. One hundred fifty-one responses were eligible for analysis, with a response rate of 20.9% among physicians who treated leukemias. One hundred forty-seven were from the United States and 4 from Canada, representing 88 different institutions and 37 states or provinces. Overall, 47% and 45% of providers reported using pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis during induction and consolidation phases, respectively. Among the providers using pharmacologic prophylaxis, 60% designated 50,000/μL as the platelet count threshold below which they would hold prophylaxis and 26% used a platelet count of 30,000/μL. Fewer providers chose a platelet count of 20,000/μL (4%), 75,000/μL (4%), and 100,000/μL (2%). Lastly, 2% held prophylactic anticoagulation only in the setting of an active bleed and 2% reported variable thresholds. Approximately 15% of providers did not utilize any VTE prophylaxis while 36% used mechanical methods and ambulation. Among providers who did not recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis, the most commonly cited reasons were the perceived high risk of bleeding (51%), absence of data supporting use (38%), and perceived low risk of VTE (11%). Conclusions: These results demonstrate wide variation in clinician practice regarding VTE prevention in hospitalized AL patients during induction and consolidation therapy. Our findings emphasize the need to develop standardized, evidence-based guidelines in this at-risk population. VTE: venous thromboembolism, AL: acute leukemia, SC: subcutaneous, TED: thromboembolic deterrant stockings, SCD: sequential compression device Figure 1. Practice patterns of VTE prophylaxis for AL patients during induction and consolidation therapies Figure 1. Practice patterns of VTE prophylaxis for AL patients during induction and consolidation therapies Disclosures Barbarotta: Celgene, BMS, Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Prebet:CELGENE: Research Funding. Gore:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with RR-AML, particularly older adults, have dismal outcomes and limited therapy options. Given low response rates and high toxicity with salvage intensive chemotherapy, and frequent ineligibility for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), many patients are treated with HMAs. Robust data regarding use of HMAs in AML predominates in the frontline setting, while their use in RR-AML has limited supportive data. Here wesought to analyze theoutcomes and their predictors in patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs. Methods:We collected data, spanning a period from 2006 to 2016, from 7 centers in the United States and 4 centers in Europe regarding patients treated with HMAs for RR-AML. Responses were defined by International Working Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated overall survival (OS) from initiation of HMAs to death or end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds for response, and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) models estimated hazards ratios (HR) for OS. Covariates considered included HMA received, age at diagnosis (in years), AML classification at diagnosis (AML with myelodysplasia-related changes [AML-MRC], therapy-related [t]-AML), disease status (relapsed vs. refractory), number of therapy lines prior to HMA (1 vs. 2 vs. >=3), duration of first complete remission (CR1), white blood cell count, peripheral blood blast percentage, bone marrow (BM) cellularity (<=20% vs. > 20%), BM blast percentage (<=20% vs. >20%), cytogenetic risk group, and the presence of complex or chromosome 7 abnormalities. Results: Of 514 patients, 217 patients (42.2%) had refractory and 297 (58%) had relapsed AML. By end of study, 415 patients (88.5%) had died. Median follow-up for living patients was 11.6 months.Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range [R], 16-92). AML-MRC was diagnosed in 29.0% while 8.2% had t-AML. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (R, 1-7), with 48.3% receiving 1 prior line, 30.2% receiving 2 prior lines, and 21.5% receiving >=3 prior lines. Prior alloSCT was performed in 21.2%. Only 1.9% had good risk (core binding factor) karyotype, while 56.2% had intermediate risk karyotype, and 41.9% had poor risk karyotype. Azacitidine was used in 45.8% and decitabine in 54.2%; median number of azacitidine cycles was 4 (Interquartile range [IQR], 2-6) compared to 2 for decitabine (IQR, 1-4, p <0.001). Best response to HMAs was CR in 11.7% (95%CI, 9%-14%), CRi in 6.4% (95%CI, 4.3%-8.8%), hematologic improvement (HI) in 8% (95%CI, 5.7%-10.5%), stable disease (SD) in 9.8% (95%CI, 7.2%-12.5%), while 64.1% (95%CI, 57.7%-66.2%) had progressive disease (PD). Median OS from HMA initiation for all patients was 6.9 months (IQR, 3.0-13.3). There was a significant difference in OS based on best response achieved [Figure 1]. Unadjusted OS showed an insignificant trend for worsening with increasing number of prior lines of therapy [Figure 2A]. In unadjusted analyses, there was no difference in OS based on HMA received in all patients [Figure 2B] or the subset who received only 1 prior line of therapy (median OS: Azacitidine vs. decitabine 8.4 vs 7.3 months, p=0.88). Following HMA therapy, the median number of subsequent therapies was 0 (R, 0-6), and only 12.8% underwent alloSCT. In multivariate CPH models, HMA used was not significantly associated with OS (HR=0.80, 95%CI, 0.42-1.51, p=0.49), while increasing age, and presence of complex cytogenetics and chromosome 7 abnormalities were significantly associated with risk of death [Table 1]. In multivariable logistic regression models, HMA used was not associated with achieving CR+CRi (Odds ratio=0.56, p=0.32). Conclusions: In this largest reported cohort of patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs, we found that HMAs are often used as alast line of therapy, with a minority of patients receiving subsequent treatment. Nonetheless, the minority of patients who achieve CR (11.7%) with HMA therapy had a median OS of 25.6 months. Therefore, use of HMAs for management of RR-AML is a reasonable intervention in the absence of clinical trial options. There appears to be no difference in OS or probability of achieving CR+CRi based on HMA used. Ongoing analyses in this dataset include further evaluations of predictors, including genetic mutations, and the development of prediction tools for clinical outcomes with HMA therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Podoltsev: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ritchie:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prebet:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gore:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Key Points In the largest study of HMAs in RR-AML to date, 16% of patients achieved CR/CRi and experienced a median OS of 21 months. Low proliferative disease (peripheral blood blasts <5%) was associated with improved response and OS.

AbstractAfter decades on the margins of primary health care, surgical and anaesthesia care is gaining increasing priority within the global development arena. The 2015 publications of the Disease Control Priorities third edition on Essential Surgery and the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery created a compelling evidenced‐based argument for the fundamental role of surgery and anaesthesia within cost‐effective health systems strengthening global strategy. The launch of the Global Alliance for Surgical, Obstetric, Trauma, and Anaesthesia Care in 2015 has further coordinated efforts to build priority for surgical care and anaesthesia. These combined efforts culminated in the approval of a World Health Assembly resolution recognizing the role of surgical care and anaesthesia as part of universal health coverage. Momentum gained from these milestones highlights the need to identify consensus goals, targets and indicators to guide policy implementation and track progress at the national level. Through an open consultative process that incorporated input from stakeholders from around the globe, a global target calling for safe surgical and anaesthesia care for 80% of the world by 2030 was proposed. In order to achieve this target, we also propose 15 consensus indicators that build on existing surgical systems metrics and expand the ability to prioritize surgical systems strengthening around the world.

BACKGROUNDTransfusion of blood products is a key component of the supportive management in patients with acute leukemia (AL). However high‐quality trial evidence and clinical outcome data to support specific transfusion goals for blood products for patients with AL remain limited leading to diverse transfusion practices. The primary objective of this study was to determine the spectrum of transfusion patterns in a variety of care settings among providers who treat AL patients.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSA 31‐question survey queried providers caring for AL patients about the existence of institutional guidelines for transfusion of blood products, transfusion triggers for hemoglobin (Hb), platelets (PLTs), and fibrinogen in various settings including inpatient and outpatient and before procedures.RESULTSWe analyzed 130 responses and identified divergent transfusion Hb goals in hospitalized and ambulatory patients, fibrinogen goals for cryoprecipitate transfusions, and variation in practice for use of certain PLTs and red blood cell products. The least variable transfusion patterns were reported for PLT goals in thrombocytopenia and in the setting of invasive procedures such as bone marrow biopsy and lumbar punctures.CONCLUSIONSThis survey confirmed wide variations in blood product transfusion practices across several clinical scenarios in patients with AL. The findings emphasized the need for large prospective randomized trials to develop standardized evidence‐based guidelines for blood product transfusions in patients with AL with the goal of limiting unnecessary transfusions without compromising outcomes.