Citations

Introduction While chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has transformed the management of hematologic malignancies, it requires frequent monitoring for acute toxicities, almost universally achieved through mandatory hospitalizations, therefore utilizing a significant amount of healthcare resources. At Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, our standard practice is administering CAR-T cell therapy in the outpatient setting through a multi-disciplinary hospital-based outpatient (HBO) unit and remote patient monitoring (RPM) program. Our CAR-T RPM program consists of in-home, electronic health record-integrated technology to monitor vital signs and neurologic symptoms for 30 days post CAR-T infusion. Here we report the healthcare utilization outcomes of CAR-T patients managed in the outpatient setting enrolled in the RPM program. Methods Patients undergoing FDA-approved CAR-T cell treatment in the outpatient setting and participating in the CAR-T RPM program at Mayo Clinic Rochester were included in this IRB-approved study. Patient characteristics, healthcare utilization metrics, inpatient interventions, and patient satisfaction data regarding the RPM program were reviewed. Length of stay (LOS) includes any hospitalizations for which the admission date falls within the RPM monitoring period (CAR-T cell infusion to day +30), even if the hospitalization continued past day +30. Results A total of 123 patients participated in the CAR-T RPM program and underwent treatment in the outpatient setting. Median age at CAR-T infusion was 63 years (range 22 - 83), and most patients were male (n=78, 63%). Non-Hodgkin lymphoma was the most common diagnosis (n=74, 60%), followed by multiple myeloma (n=47, 38%), ALL (n=1, 1%) and other (n=1, 1%). During the PRM monitoring period, 19 (16%) patients were managed entirely in the outpatient setting. The remaining 104 (84%) patients required at least one hospitalization, with most patients (n=70, 57%) hospitalized only once [26 (21%) patients were hospitalized twice, and 7 (6%) patients were hospitalized 3 times, and 1 (1%) patient hospitalized 4 times during the monitoring period]. When considering the first hospitalization post CAR-T infusion, the median LOS was 6 days (range 2 - 47). When considering all hospitalizations post CAR-T, the median LOS was 8 days (range 2 - 47). Only 7 (6%) patients required an ICU stay, with a mean ICU stay of 0.2 days (standard deviation 0.9). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was noted in 92 (75%) of patients at a median of 3 days (range 0 - 18) post CAR-T infusion. All patients with CRS received tocilizumab, at a median of 4 days post CAR-T infusion. Steroids for CRS were administered in 63 (68%) of these patients. Neurotoxicity was reported in 45 (37%) patients at a median of 7 days (range 1 - 19) post CAR-T infusion. During the RPM monitoring period, patients were seen in our HBO unit with a median of 18 outpatient visits (range 4 - 30). Patient survey data, obtained at the end of the RPM monitoring period, were available from 37 patients. The majority of patients felt that the RPM program helped them feel comfortable managing their health at home, were able to reach a team member, and receive an appropriate response promptly. The majority of patients felt comfortable using the RPM equipment and interacting with providers virtually. Overall, 83% of patients were satisfied with the RPM program and 6% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. When asked about the reason for disappointment, technical difficulties/issues with the devices were the themes mentioned by the few patients (11%) who were unsatisfied with the RPM program. Conclusion: Despite the complexities and frequent monitoring associated with CAR-T cell therapy, outpatient CAR-T cell treatment is a feasible model of care. As the standard practice at our institution, the CAR-T RPM program was part of the management of nearly all patients undergoing an FDA-approved CAR-T product in the outpatient setting. RPM in the acute setting post CAR-T infusion is a well-received practice initiative by the majority of patients, including a high level of comfort utilizing the RPM equipment and virtual interaction with the RPM providers.

Abstract POEMS syndrome is a rare paraneoplastic syndrome and therapies are directed against plasma cells that produce the proteins that cause this syndrome. Novel therapies are widely used in multiple myeloma aiming for plasma cell eradication. However, data on their use in POEMS syndrome are lacking. In this case series, we provide the Mayo Clinic experience in treating 16 patients with relapsed POEMS syndrome with novel agents (daratumumab, carfilzomib, pomalidomide, and elotuzumab). The patients were treated with a doublet including dexamethasone (N = 5) (31%) or in various combinations with other agents: DRd (N = 6), DC(V)d (N = 3), KRd (N = 3), KPd (N = 1), DP(V)d (N = 5), and EloRd (N = 1). The outcomes with novel agent therapies were favorable. Overall, twelve patients treated with daratumumab-based therapies (86%) and five patients treated with carfilzomib-based therapies (83%) responded to therapy. Among patients treated with daratumumab based therapies (N = 14), 9 patients achieved CR/VGPRH, 7 patients achieved CRV, and 5 patients achieved CRP. Among patients treated with carfilzomib-based therapies (N = 6), 3 patients achieved CR/VGPRH, and one achieved PRH. At a median follow-up of 38 months since starting of the novel agent (IQR 24–57), 15 of the patients (93%) are still alive, and the median TTNT was not reached. None of the patients discontinued therapy due to adverse events and no deaths occurred on therapy. Novel therapies were safe with 7 events of hospitalization due to pneumonia (4 in daratumumab-based therapies and 3 on carfilzomib-based therapies), and 4 patients were hospitalized due to volume overload. Three patients experienced infusion-related reactions (IRR) to the first dose of IV daratumumab. The response rate to novel agents was high, and the responses were deep. Novel agent therapies were safe, and no death case occurred on therapy. Future studies are needed to clarify the optimal sequence of novel agents and the best combination.

Abstract Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor (PI), has shown efficacy in the treatment of newly diagnosed and relapsed light chain (AL) amyloidosis, and is often used in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone. Ixazomib is the first oral PI to be approved in routine practice but has not yet been evaluated in the upfront treatment setting. Newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients with measurable disease and adequate organ function were enrolled. The primary objective was to determine the hematologic response rate of ixazomib in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone. Treatment was given for 12 cycles, followed by ixazomib maintenance until progression. Thirty-five patients were included; their median age was 67 years, and 69% were male. Major organ involvement included heart (66%) and kidneys (54%). A median of 4 induction cycles (range, 1-12) were administered. The overall hematologic response to induction was 63% and included complete response in 11.4% and very good partial response in 37.1% of patients. One patient was upstaged to complete response during maintenance. The most common reason for going off study was the institution of alternate therapy (61%). With a median follow-up of 29.7 months for the living patients, the 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival were 74% and 78%, respectively. The median time to alternate therapy was 7.5 months. Grade ≥3 hematologic and nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 23% and 49% of patients. Given ixazomib’s favorable toxicity profile, which is an important advantage for the typically frail AL population, further evaluation of ixazomib in other combinations in the upfront setting is warranted. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01864018.

Background: In response to encounters involving misconduct, discrimination, and harassment toward healthcare workers, the Experience Training, Education, and Coaching (XTEC) team was tasked with empowering staff members to respond to biased requests and misconduct appropriately and consistently. The aim of this article is to discuss communication strategies for how to respond to patient bias and misconduct. Methods: XTEC developed a training program with two focused communication strategies: (1) SAFER, a stepped approach to respond to patient and visitor misconduct and (2) ASAP, an approach for responding to patient bias which we describe as requests related to race, religion, ethnicity, gender, and other personal attributes of staff. Intervention: SAFER ASAP workshops were delivered to 2154 health care professionals through 109 face-to-face training over a 15-month period between January 2019 and March 2020. All trainings were discussion- and scenario-based, ranging in duration from 60 to 90 min. Participants were given pre- and post-training test case scenarios, in which respondents wrote responses to a challenging behavior to assess skill attainment post-training. Results:Seventy-one percent demonstrated higher levels of response ability post-training, and 92% of respondents indicated they would likely recommend this training to others. Conclusions: SAFER ASAP is an effective communication training program for responding to patient and visitor bias and misconduct.

Clinical success with intravenous (IV) oncolytic virotherapy (OV) has to date been anecdotal. Here, we conducted a phase 1 clinical trial of systemic OV therapy and investigated the mechanisms of action in responding T-cell lymphoma (TCL) patients. A single IV dose of VSV-IFNβ-NIS was administered to patients with relapsed refractory hematologic malignancies to determine safety and efficacy across 4 dose levels (DL). Correlative studies were undertaken to evaluate viremia, virus shedding, virus replication and immune responses. Fifteen patients received VSV-IFNβ-NIS (7 multiple myeloma, 7 TCL, 1 acute myeloid leukemia); 3 patients were treated at each DL1 through DL3 (0.05, 0.17, and 0.5 x 1011 TCID50), and 6 at DL4 (1.7 x 1011 TCID50). There were no dose limiting toxicities. 3 of 7 patients with TCL had RECIST responses: a 3-month PR at DL2, a 6-month PR and a durable CR ongoing at 20 months at DL4. Viremia peaked at the end of infusion and no infectious virus shedding was detected. Plasma interferon-β levels, a biomarker of VSV-IFNβ-NIS replication, peaked between 4h and 48h post infusion. The patient with CR had robust viral replication with increased ell free DNA in her plasma, a very high peak IFNβ level of 18,213 pg/ml, a strong anti-VSV neutralizing antibody response, and increased numbers of tumor reactive T-cells. VSV-IFNβ-NIS as a single agent was effective in patients with TCL resulting in durable disease remissions in heavily pretreated patients. Correlative analyses suggest that responses may be due to a combination of direct oncolytic tumor destruction and immune-mediated tumor control. Further clinical testing is warranted. (This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03017820).

AbstractCastleman disease (CD) is a rare lymphoproliferative disease characterized by diverse clinical and pathologic features. Due to its rarity, there are limited studies comparing currently available therapies. The role of autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in CD has not yet been established. In this paper, we describe the clinical characteristics, treatment choices, and outcomes in 34 Mayo Clinic patients diagnosed with multicentric CD from July 1, 2003 to April 30, 2018. Eighteen patients (53%) also met the criteria for POEMS, including 14 with the osteosclerotic variant. The first‐line treatments included: steroid monotherapy (4), cytotoxic chemotherapy (6), rituximab alone (8) or with chemotherapy (2), anti‐IL6 treatment (3), and ASCT (10). The median follow‐up was 4.8 (range: 0.1–15.2) years. The 5‐ and 10‐year overall survival rates were 84% and 71%, respectively. Sixteen patients received high‐dose chemotherapy followed by ASCT during their disease course. Among those, 14 had multicentric CD associated with POEMS. There were no transplant‐related deaths. All patients had at least a partial response to ASCT, most of whom achieved a complete response. The favorable outcomes seen with ASCT in this cohort suggest that transplantation may have a role in multicentric CD, particularly for patients with multicentric CD associated with POEMS.

AbstractThromboses are prevalent in POEMS syndrome, but few risk factors for POEMS‐associated thrombosis have been identified. The objective of this study is to identify novel risk factors for POEMS‐associated thrombosis. In this retrospective cohort of 230 POEMS patients, 27% developed thrombosis. Arterial events were slightly more common than venous. Stroke accounted for 26% of all thromboses and 53% of arterial events. There were differences in baseline features between the thrombosis group and the no thrombosis group, and these were driven by patients with arterial thrombosis. Risk factors for arterial thrombosis included thrombocytosis, elevated hemoglobin/hematocrit, extravascular volume overload, and splenomegaly. Hyperprolactinemia appeared to be a risk factor for venous thrombosis. The risk of thrombosis was most striking among men with elevated hemoglobin (32% vs. 5%, p < .001) and hematocrit (42% vs. 5%, p < .001) compared to men without. Most thromboses occurred prior to POEMS directed therapy, and most that occurred during therapy happened within 3 months of diagnosis. Twenty‐one percent of patients with thrombosis had recurrence. In recognition of high overall rates of thrombosis in this population, all patients with POEMS syndrome should receive prophylactic antiplatelet therapy, and clinicians should consider anticoagulation in patients with risk factors for POEMS‐associated thrombosis.

Abstract Background: There has been a steady improvement in the survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) due to better understanding of the pathophysiology, use of novel agents, and risk-adapted therapy. These improvements were largely observed in clinical trials and tertiary center populations and questions remain about the generalizability of these findings to patients in community settings. Here, we compared the experience of patients seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester (MAYO) and those followed in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER), to gain a better understanding of current trends in survival. Methods: We studied all patients with MM diagnosed between 01/2004 and 12/2018 seen at MAYO and those followed in SEER (18 registry research data 2000-2018, 11/2020 submission). For comparison with SEER, MAYO patients who were alive at the end of SEER follow-up (12/31/2018) were censored. For the estimation of relative survival, patients alive at the end of 2019 were censored to align with the published United States general population rate tables. Overall survival (OS) estimates were calculated using the method described by Kaplan and Meier. Multivariable-adjusted proportional hazards regression models were used to assess the association between the 5-year interval of diagnosis and overall survival. Expected OS estimates were calculated based on United States general population rate tables from the Human Mortality Database using a conditional approach. Standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were calculated by dividing the number of observed deaths by the number of expected deaths in age- and sex-matched general United States population controls. Linear regression models were fit to test for trends in SMRs over time. Results: The median age at diagnosis was 3 years lower in patients seen at MAYO compared to patients followed in SEER. The proportion of patients 75 years and older at the time of diagnosis was higher in SEER (26.3%) compared to MAYO (15.3%). Median OS was 6.7 years (95% CI 6.3-7.1) for MAYO compared to 4.6 years (95% CI 4.5-4.7) in SEER (Figure 1). When stratifying OS by year of diagnosis (in 5-year-intervals: 2004-2008, 2009-2013, 2014-2018), improvements were seen in both patient populations over time, albeit to a greater extent in patients seen at MAYO (Figures 2 and 3). The results were consistent after adjusting for age and sex in both MAYO and SEER. There were improvements in OS across all three 5-year intervals and age groups in both patient populations. In MAYO, these improvements were most pronounced during the second 5-year interval for younger patients (&lt; 65 years) and more pronounced during the last 5-year interval for older patients (&gt; 65 years). In SEER, the improvements were more gradual across the three 5-year intervals, but it was noted that the relative improvements in younger patients were greater than in older patients during the last 5-year interval. Early mortality decreased over time in both patient populations: from 11% to 6% at MAYO and from 23% to 16% in SEER (Figure 4). To examine the observed improvements in the context of the survival trends of the general population, we stratified the SMRs by patient population, age at diagnosis, and year of diagnosis, and a lack of improvement in excess mortality was observed among older patients (&gt;75 years) in both populations over time (Figure 5). Three- and five-year overall survival estimates were higher in patients seen at MAYO compared to patients followed in SEER, but the survival advantage diminished with increasing follow-up time (Figure 6). On further sub-group analysis within MAYO patients, excess mortality was observed for all International staging system (ISS) stages and patients with high-risk (HR) cytogenetics. Stratifying the SMRs by age and risk group, decreases in excess mortality were most pronounced among older patients, particularly those with indolent disease (Figure 7). Conclusions: Survival outcomes in MM continued to improve in both patient populations. These improvements were more pronounced in MAYO compared to SEER, which may be partially explained by differences in access to specialized care. The most pronounced improvements were observed among younger patients and those with favorable disease characteristics. Future efforts need to focus on improving therapies for patients with unfavorable disease characteristics and on increasing access to specialized care in community settings. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kapoor: Glaxo SmithKline: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Ichnos Sciences: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Consultancy. Dingli: Alexion: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Gertz: Ionis Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board; Aurora Biopharma: Other: Stock option; AbbVie Inc, Celgene Corporation: Other: Data Safetly & Monitoring; Akcea Therapeutics, Ambry Genetics, Amgen Inc, Celgene Corporation, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Pfizer Inc (to Institution), Sanofi Genzyme: Honoraria; Akcea Therapeutics, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, Prothena: Consultancy. Lin: Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dispenzieri: Sorrento Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Alnylam: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Kumar: Tenebio: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding.