Sekeres, Mikkael A

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.

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.

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.

Abstract The recent approval of 3 drugs for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) has resulted in a revolution in therapeutic options that was absent a decade ago. At the same time, the changing MDS environment is raising new challenges in clinical trial design and defining new indications for MDS drugs. Many current trials still rely on IPSS-based enrollment criteria, despite the well-recognized limitations of the IPSS. Clinical trialists designing studies struggle with several important trial design challenges, including which patients constitute the “previously treated” and “relapsed/refractory” MDS populations, and how specifically to define disease “progression.” This article considers some of these issues as they relate to study design, including how to identify certain MDS populations and define disease progression.