Juckett, Mark

Introduction Public reporting of outcomes drives healthcare improvement in many fields, including hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), although with possible unintended consequences. The Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) publishes an annual Center-Specific Survival Analysis (CSA), which compares HCT centers' observed 1-year overall survival (OS) with their statistically modeled expected 1-year OS, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Centers with OS within their 95% CI receive a 0 score, indicating as expected outcomes. Those with OS below / above their 95% CI receive a -1 / +1 score, indicating below / above expected OS, respectively. After a -1 report, centers may change their patient selection criteria, causing unintentional systematic exclusion of patient populations who could benefit from HCT. We analyzed how the CSA report influences patient selection practices among centers receiving a -1 score. Methods Centers receiving a -1 report between 2012 and 2016 that had ‘as expected’ survival in the preceding 2 years were classified as newly below expected OS centers (NBCs). The year of their -1 report was used as the index year. Centers with ‘as expected’ OS in the 3 years before and after each index year were identified as control centers, reflecting expected evolution of patient selection in the HCT field. The patient population variables analyzed are shown in Table 1. The difference in patient population characteristics in the 3 years before vs the 3 years after the index years defined the change in patient selection behavior at the NBCs and the controls. A multivariate model adjusting for baseline patient population characteristics and center size was used to compare the change in patient population from before and after the index year in the NBCs and that of the controls. The difference in differences (ΔinΔ) were calculated as ΔNBC - ΔControl. A significance threshold of p<0.01 was used to account for multiple testing. Results After adjusting for overall trends, center size, and baseline patient population characteristics, no differences in patient selection behavior meeting the pre-specified threshold for statistical significance were identified when comparing the NBCs (n=24 centers) with the controls (n=195 centers). In the 3 years following the index years, 4,150 and 25,013 patients were transplanted at NBCs and controls, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving reduced intensity or non-myeloablative conditioning regimens decreased 4.1% in NBCs and increased 5.0% in controls, for a net difference of -9.1% (95% CI: -16.7% to -1.6%, p=0.02). All other patient characteristic proportions changed in the same direction at NBCs and controls, albeit to varying degrees (Table 1). In some high-risk characteristics, (e.g. HCT-CI > 3), a greater increase was seen at NBCs vs controls (ΔinΔ 2.1% 95% CI: -2.8% to 6.9%, p=0.40). In others, (e.g. age 60+ years), a greater increase was seen at controls vs NBCs (ΔinΔ -2.6% 95% CI: -5.9% to 0.7%, p=0.12). To capture a holistic measure of centers' patient population risk, the predicted 1-year survival was compared in the NBCs vs controls using the logistic regression model generated for each year's CSA. The predicted OS increased by 3.08% and 3.30% in the NBCs and controls respectively, with no statistically significant difference (-0.23%, 95% CI: -1.4% to 0.9%, p=0.70, Figure 1). The observed overall survival (adjusted for predicted 1 year OS) also increased in both BECs and controls by 0.9% and 4.5% respectively, without statistically significant difference (-3.6%, 95% CI: -6.7% to -0.7%, p=0.02). Discussion For centers receiving a -1 report, no statistically significant changes were seen in patient population characteristics in the following 3 years when compared to centers with OS was as expected. There was variability in the changes in high-risk patient characteristics at the NBCs relative to the controls, and in some cases more patients with high-risk characteristics were selected at these centers compared to those at controls. The change in predicted overall survival at 1 year, a summary indicator of survival risk, was similar between BECs and control centers. Although the number of patients in centers with below expected OS was small, these findings suggest the public reporting of outcomes in HCT in the US does not unintentionally affect access to HCT for high-risk patients at NBCs.

Lay Summary People who have advanced myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) may live longer if they get a bone marrow transplant (BMT) instead of other therapies. However, only 15% of people with MDS actually get BMT. Experts say community physicians and transplant physicians should team up with insurance companies and patient advocacy groups to 1) spread this news about lifesaving advances in BMT, 2) ensure that everyone can afford health care, 3) provide emotional support for patients and families, 4) help patients and families get transportation and housing if they need to travel for transplant, and 5) improve care for people of under‐represented racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) involves the infusion of hematopoietic progenitor cells into patients with hematologic disorders with the goal of re-establishing normal hematopoietic and immune function. HCT is classified as autologous or allogeneic based on the origin of hematopoietic cells. Autologous HCT uses the patient’s own cells while allogeneic HCT uses hematopoietic cells from a human leukocyte antigen-compatible donor. Allogeneic HCT is a potentially curative treatment option for patients with certain types of hematologic malignancies, and autologous HCT is primarily used to support patients undergoing high-dose chemotherapy. Advances in HCT methods and supportive care in recent decades have led to improved survival after HCT; however, disease relapse and posttransplant complications still commonly occur in both autologous and allogeneic HCT recipients. Allogeneic HCT recipients may also develop acute and/or chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), which results in immune-mediated cellular injury of several organs. The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation focus on recommendations for pretransplant recipient evaluation and the management of GVHD in adult patients with malignant disease.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Obesity is increasingly common in the US and is frequently associated with co-morbid medical conditions that may increase the risk of HCT, often the optimal treatment for AML. HCT risk and outcomes for AML on the basis of body mass index (BMI) have not been well-characterized. Using data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), we have previously shown no significant difference in outcomes for autologous HCT for lymphoma among normal weight, overweight, and obese patients (pts) but worse outcomes for underweight pts (Navarro et al, BBMT 2006, 12(5): 541–51). Here, we compare outcomes by weight groups for AML patients who underwent autologous, related, or unrelated HCT. METHODS: Our final population included patients age ≥ 18 who underwent myeloablative unpurged autologous or allogeneic HCT for AML in 1st or 2nd complete remission, primary induction failure, or 1st relapse reported to the CIBMTR from 1995 to 2004. Cord blood HCTs were excluded. Four weight groups were defined based on BMI (BMI=weight (kg)/ height (m2)): underweight <18; normal=18–25; overweight >25–30; and obese >30. Treatment-related mortality (TRM), relapse, leukemia-free survival (LFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared using multivariable proportional hazards regression analysis accounting for patient, disease and HCT-related variables. RESULTS: We included 373 autologous, 2041 related, and 1801 unrelated transplant recipients. Patient-, disease-, and transplant characteristics were well-matched across weight groups and transplant types. Multivariable analysis examining risks (95% confidence intervals) relative to the normal weight group are: HCT Type Normal Underweight Overweight Obese -- =not done due to insufficient number of pts; NS=not significant; treatment failure = death or recurrence of disease. Autologous n=164 n=5 n=112 n=81 Death -- NS NS Treatment failure -- NS NS Relapse -- NS NS TRM -- NS NS Related Allogeneic n=1161 n=31 n=543 n=268 Death 1.86 (1.24–2.78) NS 1.23 (1.04–1.47) Treatment failure 2.08 (1.37–3.15) NS 1.19 (1.00–1.42) Relapse 2.02 (1.18–3.47) NS NS TRM 2.22 (1.17–4.22) NS 1.32 (1.02–1.70) Unrelated Allogeneic n=846 n=31 n=523 n=368 Death NS NS NS Treatment failure NS NS NS Relapse NS 0.82 (0.68–0.99) 0.76 (0.60–0.96) TRM NS NS NS CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in risk of TRM, LFS, relapse or OS for normal weight, overweight or obese patient groups who received autologous HCT. Obese recipients of related HCT for AML had increased risk of death, treatment failure, and TRM, though the magnitude was small, an effect was not seen in the unrelated HCT group. Underweight patients who received a related, but not unrelated HCT, fared substantially worse than normal weight patients for all outcomes. It may be that the higher risk of the unrelated HCT procedure masks important but less obvious risks associated with being underweight whereas in the related donor HCT setting, such risks become manifest. Small numbers of patients limit the ability to better characterize this finding in underweight patients. Disproportionately, fewer transplants have been reported in underweight patients which suggest they experience disease and patient-related factors that preclude transplantation. No differences were observed for incidence of acute or chronic GVHD for any weight group. Overweight and obesity should not be a barrier to HCT; however, caution should be exercised in selecting underweight patients for HCT.

Abstract Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is an expensive, resource-intensive, and medically complicated modality for treatment of many hematologic disorders. A well-defined care coordination model through the continuum can help improve health care delivery for this high-cost, high-risk medical technology. In addition to the patients and their families, key stakeholders include not only the transplantation physicians and care teams (including subspecialists), but also hematologists/oncologists in private and academic-affiliated practices. Initial diagnosis and care, education regarding treatment options including HCT, timely referral to the transplantation center, and management of relapse and late medical or psychosocial complications after HCT are areas where the referring hematologists/oncologists play a significant role. Payers and advocacy and community organizations are additional stakeholders in this complex care continuum. In this article, we describe a care coordination framework for patients treated with HCT within the context of coordination issues in care delivery and stakeholders involved. We outline the challenges in implementing such a model and describe a simplified approach at the level of the individual practice or center. This article also highlights ongoing efforts from physicians, medical directors, payer representatives, and patient advocates to help raise awareness of and develop access to adequate tools and resources for the oncology community to deliver well-coordinated care to patients treated with HCT. Lastly, we set the stage for policy changes around appropriate reimbursement to cover all aspects of care coordination and generate successful buy-in from all stakeholders.

AbstractTherapy‐related myeloid neoplasms (tMN) are serious late effects of the treatment of cancer with poor response to conventional treatment. Azacitidine (AZA) has been used to treat patients with tMN but current data are retrospective. We present here 47 tMN patients prospectively enrolled as a specific cohort in the E1905 study. TheE1905 study was a randomized phase 2 study (NCT00313586) testing 10 d of AZA (50 mg/m2/d) +/− the histone deacetylase inhibitor entinostat (4 mg/m2/d PO day‐3 and day‐10). A total of 47 patients [29 therapy‐related myelosyspastic syndrome (t‐MDS) and 18 therapy‐related acute myeloid leukaemia (t‐AML)] were recruited to the study. 24 patients were treated with AZA monotherapy and 23 with AZA+entinostat. The median number of administered cycles was 4, significantly higher in patients treated with AZA (6 cycles vs. 3 cycles, P = 0·008). Haematological normalization rates were 46% in monotherapy and 17% in the combination arm. Median overall survivals were 13 and 6 months, respectively. The novel 50 * 10 schedule of azacitidine appears effective, with response rates, when given as single agent, comparable to those for patients with de novo MDS/AML treated on the same protocol. However, the combination of AZA and entinostat was associated with increased toxicity and could not be recommended for treatment of tMN.