Citations

AbstractIn the POLARIX trial, pola‐R‐CHP demonstrated improved progression‐free survival (PFS) compared to R‐CHOP in untreated intermediate‐ to high‐risk DLBCL. We surveyed practicing clinicians regarding their interpretation of POLARIX, including impressions of efficacy, safety, and cost. Of 174 respondents, most from academic centers (82%) in the United States (57%), 70% stated they would not replace R‐CHOP with pola‐R‐CHP due to insufficient PFS difference, lack of overall survival benefit, and excessive cost. Respondents not recommending pola‐R‐CHP expressed concerns about financial implications for both society and patients. We observed considerable heterogeneity in both study interpretation and plans for real‐world implementation of pola‐R‐CHP.

AbstractRare cases of COVID‐19 vaccinated individuals develop anti‐platelet factor 4 (PF4) antibodies that cause thrombocytopenia and thrombotic complications, a syndrome referred to as vaccine‐induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT). Currently, information on the characteristics and persistence of anti‐PF4 antibodies that cause VITT after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination is limited, and available diagnostic assays fail to differentiate Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19‐associated VITT from similar clinical disorders, namely heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) and spontaneous HIT. Here we demonstrate that while Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT patients are uniformly strongly positive in PF4‐polyanion enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs); they are frequently negative in the serotonin release assay (SRA). The PF4‐dependent p‐selectin expression assay (PEA) that uses platelets treated with PF4 rather than heparin consistently diagnosed Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT. Most Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT antibodies persisted for >5 months in PF4‐polyanion ELISAs, while the PEA became negative earlier. Two patients had otherwise unexplained mild persistent thrombocytopenia (140‐150 x 103/µL) 6 months after acute presentation. From an epidemiological perspective, differentiating VITT from spontaneous HIT, another entity that develops in the absence of proximate heparin exposure, and HIT is important, but currently available PF4‐polyanion ELISAs and functional assay are non‐specific and detect all three conditions. Here, we report that a novel un‐complexed PF4 ELISA specifically differentiates VITT, secondary to both Ad26.COV2.S and ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19, from both spontaneous HIT, HIT and commonly‐encountered HIT‐suspected patients who are PF4/polyanion ELISA‐positive but negative in functional assays. In summary, Ad26.COV2.S‐associated VITT antibodies are persistent, and the un‐complexed PF4 ELISA appears to be both sensitive and specific for VITT diagnosis.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented challenges in medical training, and we sought to assess the specific impact of COVID-19 on hematology-oncology (HO) fellowship programs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional anonymous online survey of 103 HO program directors (PDs) in conjunction with the American Society of Hematology (ASH) and ASCO. We sought to assess the specific impact of COVID-19 on HO fellowship programs' clinical, educational, and research activities, evaluate perceptions regarding PD and trainee emotional and mental health, and identify ways to support programs. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, parametric and nonparametric tests, and multivariable logistic regression models. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Significant changes to fellowship activities included transitioning fellow training from outpatient clinics to telehealth (77.7%), shifting to virtual education (94.2%), and moving to remote research work (63.1%). A minority (21.4%) of PDs reported that their fellows were redeployed to cover non-HO services. Most PDs (54.4%) believed COVID-19 had a slight negative impact on fellowship training. PD self-reported burnout increased significantly from 15.5% prepandemic to 44.7% during the pandemic, and most PDs witnessed minor signs of fellow burnout (52.4%). Common PD concerns included inadequate supervision for telehealth activities, reduced opportunities for fellow advancement and promotion, lack of professional development activities, limited research operations and funding, program financial constraints, and virtual recruitment. CONCLUSION: We encourage institutions and national societies to allocate resources and develop programs that can support fellowships and mitigate the potential negative effects of COVID-19 on trainee and PD career development.

PURPOSE: Graduate medical and research training has drastically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with widespread implementation of virtual learning, redeployment from core rotations to the care of patients with COVID-19, and significant emotional and physical stressors. The specific experience of hematology-oncology (HO) fellows during the COVID-19 pandemic is not known. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study using a survey of Likert-style and open-ended questions to assess the training experience and well-being of HO fellows, including both clinical and postdoctoral trainee members of the American Society of Hematology and ASCO. RESULTS: A total of 2,306 surveys were distributed by e-mail; 548 (23.8%) fellows completed the survey. Nearly 40% of fellows felt that they had not received adequate mental health support during the pandemic, and 22% reported new symptoms of burnout. Pre-existing burnout before the pandemic, COVID-19–related clinical work, and working in a primary research or nonclinical setting were associated with increased burnout on multivariable logistic regression. Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed significant concerns about employment after training completion, perceived variable quality of virtual education and board preparation, loss of clinical opportunities to prepare for independent clinical practice, inadequate grant funding opportunities in part because of shifting research priorities, variable productivity, and mental health or stress during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: HO fellows have been profoundly affected by the pandemic, and our data illustrate multiple avenues for fellowship programs and national organizations to support both clinical and postdoctoral trainees.

Background: With the incorporation of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging as part of the standard staging evaluation of follicular lymphoma (FL), it is generally recommended to obtain the diagnostic biopsy from a lesion with the highest standardized uptake value (SUV) to rule out de novo histologic transformation (HT). In some cases such an approach might be impractical, while in other cases a biopsy from a diseased area with a high SUV may still demonstrate an indolent histology. To date, there is no data to guide treatment choices in patients (pts) with FL with high SUVmax but with no documented evidence of HT. Specifically, it remains unclear whether anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, provide a better outcome than R-Bendamustine (BR). Furthermore, it is unknown whether rituximab (R) maintenance is beneficial in this setting. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of R-CHOP vs BR in newly diagnosed FL pts with high SUVmax at baseline PET and to clarify the role of maintenance. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified 261 consecutive pts with newly diagnosed biopsy-proven FL1-3A and a SUVmax≥13 on baseline PET, who were treated with frontline R-CHOP (n=183) or BR (n=78) at 7 US cancer centers based on the physician's choice. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from starting treatment until progression, relapse or death. Cut-offs of SUVmax ≥13≤18 and SUVmax>18 were used for sub-analysis (Haematologica;2020;105:1907-1913). Results: Median age was 59 years. The baseline characteristics of the two groups differed significantly for a younger age (58 vs 62 years, p=0.009), a higher rate of B-symptoms (26% vs 10%, p=0.005) and baseline SUVmax>18 (49% vs 36%, p=0.04) in the R-CHOP group. A diagnostic biopsy was obtained from the site at the highest SUV in 129 (71%) and 43 (55%) pts, respectively (p=0.01). These suggest a potential selection of R-CHOP in pts with adverse features. At the end of therapy (EoT), R-CHOP treated pts achieved higher PET-CT complete response rates (CR 82% vs 69%, p=0.02). This superiority held in pts with diagnostic biopsy at the highest SUV site (CR 83% vs 67%, p=0.03), but not in the others (CR 80% vs 71%, p=0.37). Progression occurred at EoT in 11 and 14 pts receiving R-CHOP and BR (6% vs 18%, p=0.02), with a higher rate of HT in the BR group (13% vs 4%, p=0.006). After a median follow-up of 76 months (range, 4-208 months), there was no significant difference in PFS between R-CHOP and BR treated pts (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, p=0.34). PFS was strongly associated with FLIPI 2 (HR 2.32, p=0.01) and 3-5 (HR 2.69, p=0.003) in the univariate as well as in the multivariate analysis (FLIPI 2 HR 2.19, p=0.02; FLIPI 3-5 HR 2.51, p=0.01). There was a trend toward overall survival (OS) benefit in the R-CHOP group (Fig.1A). In the univariate analysis for OS, BR regimen (HR 2.12, p=0.03), age >60 (HR 2.54, p=0.006), FLIPI 3-5 (HR 5.13, p=0.03) and biopsy at the highest SUV site (HR 0.44, p=0.01) were prognostic, however none of those remained significant in the multivariate analysis (BR regimen HR 1.84, p=0.09; age >60 HR 1.92, p=0.08; FLIPI 3-5 HR 3.11, p=0.14; biopsy at the highest SUV site HR 0.60, p=0.13; SUVmax>18 HR 1.87, p=0.055). Among pts with EoT response after R-CHOP or BR (n=170 and n=64, respectively), one third in each group (36% vs 41%, respectively) received R-maintenance for a median of 8 administrations (range, 2-12). A significant PFS advantage (landmark analysis) was observed with R-maintenance (Fig.1B; HR 0.53, p=0.02); however, this did not translate in survival benefit (HR 0.67, p=0.49). In a multivariable model, R-maintenance (HR 0.53, p=0.02), FLIPI 2 (HR 2.47, p=0.03) and 3-5 (HR 2.79, p=0.01) remained independent prognosticators of PFS, while no parameters significantly affected OS. The 2-year HT rate (10% vs 17%) and cumulative incidence did not statistically differ between R-CHOP and BR groups (Fig.1C, p=0.159). Early progression (POD24) occurred in 43 and 22 pts who received R-CHOP and BR, respectively (24% vs 28%) and resulted in a significantly higher risk of death (HR 4.12, p=0.006). Conclusion: In newly diagnosed FL pts with SUVmax≥13 at baseline PET, R-CHOP was more effective in achieving CR and reducing the risk of early HT compared with BR, and it was associated with a trend toward survival advantage. Rituximab maintenance significantly prolonged PFS. A prospective evaluation with a larger population will be needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Joffe: Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ruella:Abclon, BMS, NanoString: Consultancy; Abclon: Consultancy, Research Funding; UPenn/Novartis: Patents & Royalties. Svoboda:Adaptive: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy. Witzig:Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Smith:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding. Armand:Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria; Gamida Cell: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Younes:BioPath, Xynomic, Epizyme, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy; Janssen, Curis, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Curis (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Novartis (Inst): Research Funding; Janssen, AbbVie, Merck, Curis, Epizyme, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda Millennium: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; MSKCC: Ended employment in the past 24 months.