Citations

Telehealth may improve access to specialized oncology care for Medicaid beneficiaries with hematological malignancies who face geographic and financial barriers. During the COVID-19 public health emergency, telehealth use expanded rapidly, yet state policies governing telehealth coverage/payment parity varied. Evidence is limited on how these policy differences influenced oncology telehealth use for Medicaid patients. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 2020–2021 multistate Medicaid claims. Adult and pediatric oncology specialists were identified based on board certification data. Telehealth video visits were measured monthly at the extensive margin, defined as the proportion of specialists providing any telehealth, and the intensive margin, defined as average monthly telehealth visits among telehealth providing specialists. States were categorized by private insurance telehealth policy environment: coverage and payment parity, coverage parity only, or no or unspecified parity. Telehealth use increased sharply across all states in early 2020, rising from less than 1% of specialists before the pandemic to peak levels by April 2020. Specialists practicing in coverage and payment parity states demonstrated higher and more sustained telehealth use through 2021 compared with those in coverage only or no parity states. By December 2021, 15.1% of adult specialists in coverage and payment parity states provided telehealth, compared with 8.1% in coverage-only states and 7.8% in no-parity states. Pediatric specialists showed similar patterns, though overall telehealth use remained lower. Specialists in parity states also maintained higher monthly telehealth visit volumes over time. State-level coverage and payment parity policies may have been associated with greater and sustained telehealth provision by oncology specialists treating Medicaid beneficiaries with hematologic malignancies. Maintaining supportive telehealth policies may be essential for promoting equitable access to specialized cancer care and reducing disparities among underserved populations. These findings inform future telehealth policy decisions nationally statewide.

Summary We investigated the outcomes of patients with advanced systemic mastocytosis (AdvSM) undergoing allogeneic haematopoietic cell therapy (alloHCT) in the US. Twenty‐seven adult (median age, 58 years) patients with AdvSM received alloHCT from 2014 to 2021. Most patients were white (93%), male (63%) and had systemic mastocytosis (SM) with associated haematological neoplasm (SM‐AHN, 70%), received peripheral blood grafts (89%) and non‐myeloablative regimens. KIT mutation was detected in 14 of the reported 16 patients (87.5%). Post‐transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) was used in approximately 50% of the cohort. Approximately 1 year after alloHCT, median bone marrow mast cell burden decreased from 15% pre‐alloHCT to 1.5% (range 0–8) at 1 year post‐alloHCT. The median serum tryptase decreased from 55 ng/mL (range 3–400 ng/mL) pre‐alloHCT to 18 ng/mL (range 0–481 ng/mL) at 1 year post‐alloHCT. At 1 year, progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41%–77%) and 74% (95% CI, 56%–89%) respectively. In the subset of patients with SM‐AHN, 1‐year PFS and OS were 74% (52%–91%) and 79% (95% CI, 58%–94%) respectively. The cumulative incidence of relapse/progression for the entire population of patients with SM ( n = 27) was 4% (95% CI, 0–14) at 100 days and 15% (95% CI, 4–31) at 1 year. For the subset of patients with AHN, the cumulative incidence was 11% (95% CI, 1–28) at 100 days and 21% (95% CI, 6–42) at 1 year. Relapse/progression was the cause of death in six of 12 patients (5 died of AHN and 1 died of SM progression). Eighteen and nine patients received a KIT inhibitor before alloHCT and after alloHCT respectively. In addition, six patients received a KIT inhibitor for the treatment of relapse/progression of SM after alloHCT. Although it is difficult to delineate the exact effect of alloHCT and KIT inhibitors because of the size of the study in this era, the use of alloHCT and KIT inhibitors pre‐ and post‐ alloHCT is increasing. In the near future, larger studies are required to provide further insights into this subject.

Abstract We evaluate the impact of donor types on outcomes of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in myelofibrosis, using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry data for HCTs done between 2013 and 2019. In all 1597 patients, the use of haploidentical donors increased from 3% in 2013 to 19% in 2019. In study-eligible 1032 patients who received peripheral blood grafts for chronic-phase myelofibrosis, 38% of recipients of haploidentical HCT were non-White/Caucasian. Matched sibling donor (MSD)–HCTs were associated with superior overall survival (OS) in the first 3 months (haploidentical hazard ratio [HR], 5.80 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.52-13.35]; matched unrelated (MUD) HR, 4.50 [95% CI, 2.24-9.03]; mismatched unrelated HR, 5.13 [95% CI, 1.44-18.31]; P < .001). This difference in OS aligns with lower graft failure with MSD (haploidentical HR, 6.11 [95% CI, 2.98-12.54]; matched unrelated HR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.20-4.51]; mismatched unrelated HR, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.58-5.72]). There was no significant difference in OS among haploidentical, MUD, and mismatched unrelated donor HCTs in the first 3 months. Donor type was not associated with differences in OS beyond 3 months after HCT, relapse, disease-free survival, or OS among patients who underwent HCT within 24 months of diagnosis. Patients who experienced graft failure had more advanced disease and commonly used nonmyeloablative conditioning. Although MSD-HCTs were superior, there is no significant difference in HCT outcomes from haploidentical and MUDs. These results establish haploidentical HCT with posttransplantation cyclophosphamide as a viable option in myelofibrosis, especially for ethnic minorities underrepresented in the donor registries.