Tag Archive for: bone marrow biopsy

Diagnosed With CLL? Start Here

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Diagnosed with CLL? Start Here from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What do newly diagnosed chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients need to know? Expert Dr. Ryan Jacobs explains how CLL occurs and provides an overview of treatment types. 

Dr. Ryan Jacobs is a hematologist/oncologist specializing in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia from Levine Cancer Institute. Learn more about Dr. Jacobs.

Download Resource Guide   |  Descargar Guía en Español

See More from START HERE CLL

Related Programs:

CLL Patient Expert Q&A: Start Here

CLL Patient Expert Q&A: Start Here

 IGHV-Mutated vs IGHV-Unmutated CLL | What’s the Difference

 Is It Aging or My CLL?

Is It Aging or My CLL?

Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:

There’s a lot going on in terms of novel therapies and new options. But before we jump into all of that, the tool box that’s expanding, can you introduce CLL and provide an explanation of what it is and what that means for a newly diagnosed patient?

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

So chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or CLL, is the most common chronic lymphoma/leukemia. It is really both most of the time. It presents with what we call lymphocytosis, meaning the white blood cell count, and specifically the lymphocyte count is high or elevated. To call it CLL, to make that formal cancer diagnosis, we can generally take a patient’s blood sample and put it through a fancy machine that we call a flow cytometer, that looks for characteristic markers on the outside of the cells, and if there’s a bunch of those cells, we call that a monomorphic population.

So a bunch of those cells that look the same, and they’re B cells, that’s the type of lymphocyte count they are, and they’re over this threshold of 5,000. Then that is the diagnosis right there, we don’t need an invasive procedure. You generally do not need a bone marrow biopsy or a lymph node biopsy. There is in about 15 percent of cases, the disease presents with just in large nymph nodes, and the white count is normal. We call that small lymphocytic lymphoma. It’s considered an overlap with CLL, and I’ve had many patients that have started off with SLL and then eventually manifest elevated lymphocyte count later in their disease course. So it is considered an overlap, the treatment is the same for both of those disease entities.

So that’s the diagnosis of CLL and how it generally shows up initially. In a nutshell, it’s a cancer of the aging population, average age is 70. I have a lot of patients that ask me, “Why did I get CLL?” And the answer is, “We don’t know.” It’s that way with most cancers, unfortunately, we don’t know why one person gets a cancer and the other person doesn’t.

But it obviously has something to do with the aging effect on the DNA of the B lymphocytes because of how much more common it is as patients get older. 

Lisa Hatfield:

We know that therapies are evolving faster, hopefully faster than patients are relapsing, which is a good thing. So when they do relapse, chances are there will be a new option for this patient. But a CLL cure still remains elusive.

So, Dr. Jacobs, if you can speak to…we’ll just jump right into some of the newer, the novel therapies and things that are being investigated with CLL treatment. If you can just speak to some of those newer therapies, the novel pathways and targets that are currently under investigation with CLL, we’d appreciate that.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

Sure. We’ve come a long way in how we are managing this common cancer that’s benefiting a lot of patients. And as mentioned, with this cancer being one that is more common in the older population, we do know that the population of the United States specifically is getting older, there’s going to be more 70-year-olds. So these breakthroughs are helping a growing number of CLL patients.

Before 2014, really outside of a clinical trial, the only way we could treat CLL Is with combinations of chemotherapy and an immune therapy, like a monoclonal antibody called rituximab (Rituxan), that was kind of our first, what we would call targeted treatment outside of chemotherapy that we had, and it was, like targeted treatments are, well tolerated. It was an antibody that targets B cells specifically.

So we were combining it with chemo, we would call that chemoimmunotherapy, and it helped a lot of CLL patients. But for many, those were poor prognostic markers in particular, and those with relapse disease, chemotherapy was not very helpful, and it was quite toxic in many circumstances.

So we’ve been fortunate that since 2014, we’ve had a lot of new treatment options, and they’re targeted therapies. It’s not like non-specific cytotoxic chemotherapy, these are treatments that have been developed with specific targets in mind that are unique to the B-cell neoplasm, the B-cell cancer, the CLL. And the first of these that really changed everything was a BTK inhibitor called ibrutinib (Imbruvica), that we got in 2014.

Initially, we can only use it in the relapse setting, but eventually, in 2016, we could start treating patients as a first line of therapy with ibrutinib.  And then in 2019, we had a newer version of BTK inhibitor, we call those second-generation BTK inhibitors. That drug was acalabrutinib. And it eventually was shown in a head-to-head study to be just as effective as ibrutinib in a relapsed patient population, but it had less side effects than ibrutinib. So in, specifically, atrial fibrillation, hypertension. Cardiac toxicities overall were one that they really focused on in that study.

So as a whole, when we were choosing BTK inhibitors, we were shifting away from ibrutinib, shifting to acalabrutinib, and then just as…earlier this year, we had a third BTK inhibitor, zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), that was approved. It’s also considered a second generation BTK inhibitor like ibrutinib and acalabrutinib (Calquence). It treats CLL in the same way, in how it inhibits BTK or Bruton’s tyrosine kinase, that’s over expressed in CLL cells.

But it also has a favorable toxicity profile when compared head to head with ibrutinib, and now we have two second-generation options between acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib. And it’s not really easy for us to know between those two, which is “better.” When we decide to treat with a BTK inhibitor, we’re usually choosing between those two at this point, and we’re trying to personalize the decision for the patient, and there are some different factors they can get involved in that complicated decision.

Luckily, we are not limited to BTK as a target. I mentioned earlier, we have monoclonal antibody, rituximab like the one I mentioned, but a newer version of rituximab, a more potent version, obinutuzumab. Is one that we have available along with a Bcl-2 inhibitor, venetoclax (Venclexta). That is now, as of 2018, improved in the frontline CLL setting, also approved in the relapsed setting, of course, since 2016.  And we use venetoclax with a monoclonal antibody like obinutuzumab (Gazyva), and together they are a very potent combination that cause pretty rapid cancer cell death, as opposed to the BTK inhibitors that more put the cancer to sleep and require daily dosing indefinitely for as long as the drugs work.

And remarkably, the data on BTK inhibitors tells us that should work for many, many years. They’ve been following some of the patients that got treatment in the first line setting, and eight years out, there’s still more than 50 percent of the patients are free of progression, so they can’t even quote an average response time yet. With eight years of follow-up on the early ibrutinib patients.  The difference with venetoclax combined with a monoclonal antibody like obinutuzumab, is because it causes a more rapid cell death, you can give it on a time-defined schedule. So we tend to give it for one year in the first-line setting and two years in the relapse setting, and the antibody portion is just given for the first six months. 

The BTK inhibitors and venetoclax are oral treatments, so that’s a big win for patients to avoid the infusion center for those treatments, but the IV antibody treatments will still require some trips to the infusion center if you’re doing that combination with venetoclax. For most patients, those two targets are what we’re choosing between, and we try to personalize the decision to the patient. And again, that’s a very complicated discussion on what is “best.” And we use things like the prognostic work-up, medical problems that the patients already have, medicines that patients are on, to help make the best treatment decision for our CLL patients. But those…for in terms of how well that treats the CLL, both of those are considered equivalent options for the large majority of CLL patients.

We’ve got some things on the horizon, but in general, those are two targets that we have at this point. There is for relapsed patients, PI3 kinase inhibitors that are still FDA-approved at this time, that aren’t quite as effective and more toxic, so we sometimes think about using one of those targeted therapies if a patient has already progressed on a BTK inhibitor in venetoclax class. In the future, we are looking towards combining BTK and Bcl-2 inhibitor. Like, for example, there’s been studies already done that I’ve put many patients on, with ibrutinib-venetoclax, and I believe there’s a question about that later.

There’s also an ongoing study that I have opened at my institution that’s looking at acalabrutinib and venetoclax. So taking these two pills together in a time-defined manner, so you don’t have to take the BTK inhibitor indefinitely. And then there are some therapies that have already been improved in other lymphomas, and we wonder if they’re going to have a role in CLL eventually. So we now have bispecific antibodies, so that’s taking a drug like rituximab or obinutuzumab and adding a T-cell engager to it, so it has two targets or it’s bispecific.

And we have that drug, mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio) available in follicular lymphoma and there’s several others in development, and we’ll see how their role comes into play in CLL as well. As well as CAR T-cell therapy, where we take a patient’s T cells and genetically engineer them to attack the cancer. That’s now an approved therapy for many different kinds of lymphomas and multiple myeloma as well.

So we wonder if that’s going to have a role in CLL. But I think for the foreseeable future, it’s going to be looking first at BTK and then Bcl-2 inhibition, or vice versa. And we don’t really know which is better to go first, we think they’re both…they can both be sequenced one after the other. And then maybe it will have some of these other breakthroughs coming in and helping for after patients need something beyond those therapies.

And there’s probably going to be a lot of patients that never need anything beyond those options, those initial couple of targets, because they do so well. I think in the most immediate future, the approval that is going to give us a new great option is going to be for an alternative site BTK inhibitor, or it’s also called a non-covalent BTK inhibitor.

And there’s this drug called pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca), it has been approved in mantle cell lymphoma and likely will get approved in CLL this year. And that drug specifically is a BTK inhibitor that still works even in patients that have, say, progressed on ibrutinib or acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib. That will be a new target available for CLL patients and probably pretty quickly become one of the go-to drugs that we use for relapsed CLL patients that have already been treated with a BTK…with a traditional BTK inhibitor. So growing number of options and it’s really great for our CLL patients. 

Share Your Feedback

Create your own user feedback survey

CLL Patient Expert Q&A: Start Here

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

CLL Patient Expert Q&A: Start Here from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

The START HERE program bridges the CLL expert and patient voice, whether you are newly diagnosed, in active treatment or in watch and wait. In this webinar, Empowerment lead Lisa Hatfield and expert Dr. Ryan Jacobs  provide an overview of the latest in CLL, managing CLL side effects and options for CLL progression.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs is a hematologist/oncologist specializing in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia from Levine Cancer Institute. Learn more about Dr. Jacobs.

Download Resource Guide   |  Descargar Guía en Español

See More from START HERE CLL

Related Programs:

Diagnosed with CLL? Start Here

Diagnosed with CLL? Start Here

 Emerging CLL Research: Understanding the CAPTIVATE and MAJIC Studies

 Can CLL Treatment Cause Gastrointestinal Side Effects?

Can CLL Treatment Cause Gastrointestinal Side Effects?

Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:  

Hello and welcome. My name is Lisa Hatfield, your host for this Patient Empowerment Network program. In this important dialogue, we bridge the expert and patient voice 

to enable you and me to feel comfortable asking questions of our healthcare teams with more precision. The world is complicated, as is a cancer diagnosis, but understanding your CLL doesn’t have to be. The goal is to create actionable pathways for getting the most out of CLL treatment and survivorship. Joining me today is Dr. Ryan Jacobs, a CLL expert from Levine Cancer Institute. Thank you very much for joining us today, Dr. Jacobs, we really appreciate you being here and your time and expertise.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

Thanks for having me, Lisa.

Lisa Hatifield:

Before we get started, please remember to download the program resource guide via the QR code. There is great information there that will be useful during this program and after. Okay, let’s get started. So, Dr. Jacobs, I’d like to talk about what’s on the chronic lymphocytic leukemia radar, and rather than saying that entire phrase each time, I’m going to refer to it as CLL, because I’m pretty sure I’ll fumble that up. There’s a lot going on in terms of novel therapies and new options, but before we jump into all of that, the tool box that’s expanding, can you introduce CLL and provide an explanation of what it is and what that means for a newly diagnosed patient?

Dr. Ryan Jacobs: 

So chronic lymphocytic leukemia, or CLL, is the most common chronic lymphoma/leukemia. It is really both most of the time. It presents with what we call lymphocytosis, meaning the white blood cell count, and specifically the lymphocyte count is high or elevated. To call it CLL, to make that formal cancer diagnosis, we can generally take a patient’s blood sample and put it through a fancy machine that we call a flow cytometer, that looks for characteristic markers on the outside of the cells, and if there’s a bunch of those cells, we call that a monomorphic population.

So a bunch of those cells that look the same, and they’re B cells, that’s the type of lymphocyte count they are, and they’re over this threshold of 5,000. Then that is the diagnosis right there, we don’t need an invasive procedure. You generally do not need a bone marrow biopsy or a lymph node biopsy. There is in about 15 percent of cases, the disease presents with just in large nymph nodes and the white count is normal. We call that small lymphocytic lymphoma. It’s considered an overlap with CLL, and I’ve had many patients that have started off with SLL and then eventually manifest elevated lymphocyte count later in their disease course. So it is considered an overlap, the treatment is the same for both of those disease entities.So that’s the diagnosis of CLL and how it generally shows up initially. In a nutshell, it’s a cancer of the aging population, average age is 70. I have a lot of patients that ask me, “Why did I get CLL?” And the answer is, we don’t know. It’s that way with most cancers, unfortunately, we don’t know why one person gets a cancer and the other person doesn’t. But it obviously has something to do with the aging effect on the DNA of the B lymphocytes because of how much more common it is as patients get older.

Lisa Hatifield:

Thank you for that overview, Dr. Jacobs. We do have CLL patients who are watching this who are newly diagnosed, they may be in active treatment, they may be in remission, they may be managing their CLL just fine right now in their lives. So we’re along the whole spectrum of CLL, so thank you for that overview. We know that therapies are evolving faster, hopefully faster than patients are relapsing, which is a good thing. So when they do relapse, chances are there will be a new option for this patient. But a CLL cure still remains elusive. So, Dr. Jacobs, if you can speak to…we’ll just jump right into some of the newer, the novel therapies and things that are being investigated with CLL treatment. If you can just speak to some of those newer therapies, the novel pathways and targets that are currently under investigation with CLL, we’d appreciate that.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

Sure. We’ve come a long way in how we are managing this common cancer that’s benefiting a lot of patients. And as mentioned, with this cancer being one that is more common in the older population, we do know that the population of the United States specifically is getting older, there’s going to be more 70-year-olds. So these breakthroughs are helping a growing number of CLL patients.

Before 2014, really outside of a clinical trial, the only way we could treat CLL Is with combinations of chemotherapy and an immune therapy, like a monoclonal antibody called Rituximab, that was kind of our first, what we would call targeted treatment outside of chemotherapy that we had, and it was, like targeted treatments are, well tolerated.  It was an antibody that targets B cells specifically. So we were combining it with chemo, we would call that chemoimmunotherapy, and it helped a lot of CLL patients. But for many, those were poor prognostic markers in particular, and those with relapse disease, chemotherapy was not very helpful, and it was quite toxic in many circumstances. So we’ve been fortunate that since 2014, we’ve had a lot of new treatment options, and they’re targeted therapies. It’s not like non-specific cytotoxic chemotherapy, these are treatments that have been developed with specific targets in mind that are unique to the B-cell neoplasm, the B cell cancer, the CLL.

And the first of these that really changed everything was a BTK inhibitor called ibrutinib, that we got in 2014. Initially, we can only use it in the relapse setting, but eventually, in 2016, we could start treating patients as a first line of therapy with ibrutinib (Imbruvica). And then in 2019, we had a newer version of BTK inhibitor, we call those second-generation BTK inhibitors. That drug was acalabrutinib (Calquence). And it eventually was shown in a head-to-head study to be just as effective as ibrutinib in a relapsed patient population, but it had less side effects than ibrutinib. So in specifically, atrial fibrillation, hypertension. Cardiac toxicities overall were one that they really focused on in that study. So as a whole, when we were choosing BTK inhibitors, we were shifting away from ibrutinib, shifting to acalabrutinib, and then just as…earlier this year, we had a third BTK inhibitor, zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), that was approved. It’s also considered a second-generation BTK inhibitor like ibrutinib and acalabrutinib.

It treats CLL in the same way, in how it inhibits BTK or Bruton’s tyrosine kinase, that’s overexpressed in CLL cells. But it also has a favorable toxicity profile when compared head to head with ibrutinib, and now we have two second generation options between a acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib. And it’s not really easy for us to know between those two, which is “better.” When we decide to treat with a BTK inhibitor, we’re usually choosing between those two at this point, and we’re trying to personalize the decision for the patient, and there’s some different factors they can get involved in that complicated decision. Luckily, we are not limited to BTK as a target. I mentioned earlier, we have monoclonal antibody, rituximab (Rituxan) like the one I mentioned, but a newer version of Rituximab, a more potent version, obinutuzumab (Gazyva). Is one that we have available along with a Bcl-2 inhibitor, venetoclax. That is now, as of 2018, improved in the frontline CLL setting, also approved in the relapse setting, of course, since 2016.

And we use venetoclax with a monoclonal antibody like obinutuzumab, and together they are a very potent combination that cause pretty rapid cancer cell death, as opposed to the BTK inhibitors that more put the cancer to sleep and require daily dosing indefinitely for as long as the drugs work. And remarkably, the data on BTK inhibitors tells us that should work for many, many years. They’ve been following some of the patients that got treatment in the first line setting, and eight years out, there’s still more than 50 percent of the patients are free of progression, so they can’t even quote an average response time yet. With eight years of follow-up on the early ibrutinib patients. The difference with venetoclax combined with a monoclonal antibody like obinutuzumab, is because it causes a more rapid cell death, you can give it on a time-defined schedule. So we tend to give it for one year in the first-line setting and two years in the relapse setting, and the antibody portion is just given for the first six months.

The BTK inhibitors and venetoclax are oral treatments, so that’s a big win for patients to avoid the infusion center for those treatments, but the IV antibody treatments will still require some trips to the infusion center if you’re doing that combination with venetoclax. For most patients, those two targets are what we’re choosing between, and we try to personalize the decision to the patient. And again, that’s a very complicated discussion on what is “best”. And we use things like the prognostic work-up, medical problems that the patients already have, medicines that patients are on, to help make the best treatment decision for our CLL patients. But those…for in terms of how well that treats the CLL, both of those are considered equivalent options for the large majority of CLL patients. We’ve got some things on the horizon, but in general, those are two targets that we have at this point. There is for relapsed patients, PI3 kinase inhibitors that are still FDA approved at this time, that aren’t quite as effective and more toxic, so we sometimes think about using one of those targeted therapies if a patient has already progressed on a BTK inhibitor in venetoclax class.

In the future, we are looking towards combining BTK and Bcl-2 inhibitor. Like for example, there’s been studies already done that I’ve put many patients on, with ibrutinib-venetoclax, and I believe there’s a question about that later. There’s also an ongoing study that I have opened at my institution that’s looking at acalabrutinib and venetoclax. So taking these two pills together in a time-defined manner, so you don’t have to take the BTK inhibitor indefinitely. And then there’s some therapies that have already been improved in other lymphomas, and we wonder if they’re going to have a role in CLL eventually. So we now have bispecific antibodies, so that’s taking a drug like Rituximab or obinutuzumab and adding a T-cell engager to it so it has two targets or it’s bispecific. And we have that drug, mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio) available in follicular lymphoma, and there are several others in development, and we’ll see how their role comes into play in CLL as well. As well as CAR T-cell therapy, where we take a patient’s T cells and genetically engineer them to attack the cancer. That’s now an approved therapy for many different kinds of lymphomas and multiple myeloma as well. So we wonder if that’s going to have a role in CLL.

But I think for the foreseeable future, it’s going to be looking first at BTK and then Bcl-2 inhibition, or vice versa. And we don’t really know which is better to go first, we think they’re both…they can both be sequenced one after the other. And then maybe it will have some of these other breakthroughs coming in and helping for after patients need something beyond those therapies. And there’s probably going to be a lot of patients that never need anything beyond those options, those initial couple of targets, because they do so well. I think in the most immediate future, the approval that is going to give us a new great option is going to be for an alternative site BTK inhibitor, or it’s also called a non-covalent BTK inhibitor.

And there’s this drug called pirtobrutinib, it has been approved in mantle cell lymphoma and likely will get approved in CLL this year. And that drug specifically is a BTK inhibitor that still works even in patients that have, say, progressed on ibrutinib or acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib. That will be a new target available for CLL patients and probably pretty quickly become one of the go-to drugs that we use for relapsed CLL patients that have already been treated with a BTK…with a traditional BTK inhibitor. So growing number of options and it’s really great for our CLL patients.

Lisa Hatfield:

Thank you for that overview again, Dr. Jacobs. It does sound like there are a lot of new therapies coming out, especially for relapsed patients, super exciting for them. And this is actually a great time to jump right into questions. We have many questions from patients that different patients have submitted. But first, I want to remind everybody that this program is not a substitute for medical care. Please consult with your medical team for advice on your own condition or disease. And, Dr. Jacob, I was taking notes as you were talking, because you had spoken a little bit about a combination of the BTK inhibitor and Bcl-2 inhibitor with venetoclax. And I did a little research last night before I talked with you, and it sounds like that is something that the CAPTIVATE trial is investigating. 

So that’s exciting, and a patient asked about that, what that trial is. And it’s music to my ears as a cancer patient to hear something like “fixed duration,” it’s also investigating a fixed duration so patients and have maybe a bit of a medication vacation. So can you speak to that trial a little bit and explain what it is a little bit on how that might benefit patients with CLL?

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

Yeah. So one of the best elements of treating with venetoclax is that it produces a deep level of remission in many patients. In fact, when given with the monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab, to CLL patients receiving that treatment as a first line of therapy for their CLL, about three-quarters of CLL patients will get to so deep of a remission that we call them minimal residual disease-negative. And that’s a blood test or a bone marrow test, but more easily done as a blood test, where we can look to a sensitivity of one in 10,000 white cells and determine if there’s any CLL in those 10,000 cells. We can actually go deeper than that, but we say, we call patients negative if they’re less than one in 10,000. And so 75 percent of patients will get to that depth of remission just with obinutuzumab for six months along with venetoclax for a year. So when researchers saw that, they recognized that we could probably stop treatment in those patients getting venetoclax because venetoclax yields these deep responses. And then the next kind of thought was, well, could we give a BTK inhibitor with venetoclax, but also over a defined treatment timeline and maybe get some of the remarkable benefits of treating with a BTK inhibitor but not get stuck being on therapy for years and years.

So the CAPTIVATE study was the first really to, in a large Phase II manner, look at that combination in a younger patient population, it was for patients 70 and younger. And it wasn’t in a high risk or anything, it was all comers. But they did have to be 70 and younger and getting treatment as a first-line therapy. So the combination was very effective. As of the last American Society of Hematology meeting in December, four years of data was reported and a large percentage of patients were still free of progression, over 80 percent still free of progression. And that’s three years off therapy at that point.

It was well-tolerated, not many patients had to come off due to toxicity. It was, in fact, less than 10 percent had really significant toxicities requiring discontinuation. So it was a well-tolerated effective treatment.

I do have one of those studies to open at my institution, the acalabrutinib-venetoclax combination, it’s called the MAJIC trial, and it is a large Phase III study that if it’s successful, I think would lead to the approval of giving those two drugs together. But then the extra credit question is, who should get the combination and who should get the drugs separately? And we don’t have an answer for that right now, and that’s a long topic of debate among CLL specialists.

Lisa Hatfield:

Great. Well, thank you. So for that trial you spoke of that you’re conducting right now, is that…is it only relapsed patients who are eligible for that? Or is that for front-line therapy?

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

No, this is a first-line therapy that the MAJIC study is.

Lisa Hatifield:

Oh good. That’s promising for patients too.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

And it has a really good comparator arm, so that won’t be a problem that the standard arm on that study is venetoclax plus obinutuzumab, so it’s comparing against one of our best treatments, and so we really will get the answer of does it look better to use the BTK with the Bcl-2? Or is it not really that much better than just giving an venetoclax with obinutuzumab? And then the one obvious element that I didn’t mention that would be nice for most patients in addition to being efficacious and well-tolerated is if you could get an all-oral combination. Of course, venetoclax with obinutuzumab, you’re still getting quite a few infusions with the obinutuzumab over the first six months. So that’s a lot of time in the infusion center that you could avoid with just the combination of two oral targeted agents. So that would be a breakthrough for patients too, I think.

Lisa Hatfield:

Well, you commented also on something that’s really important for patients to know, and that is that if you go into a clinical trial, you won’t be given nothing for cancer clinical trials, you’re going to be given the standard of care or whatever it’s being compared to. So for patients who are considering that.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

That’s a Phase III. Yeah, for Phase III. If you go on an earlier phase trial, you know exactly what you’re getting. There’s usually not any randomization for earlier phase studies, you just get the intended treatment.

Lisa Hatfield:

Okay, great. Well, thank you so much for explaining that. So we have some pretty specific questions, and we have a patient who wrote in and asked, “What is the difference between IGHV-mutated and IGHV-unmutated CLL? And can you talk about treatment considerations for those?”

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

Yeah. So that’s part of a bigger discussion around the prognostic work-up of CLL and not all CLL is the same, and we’ve done a really good job of figuring out tests to separate out the CLL patients that tend to behave more aggressively and respond to certain kind of therapies, versus those that are more of what we call indolent or slow growing and respond to other kinds of therapies. I do want to say, I haven’t mentioned it yet, we still don’t treat CLL if it’s not causing any problems. And about half of patients get diagnosed as sort of an accident, and they get a blood test for something else, and their white count is elevated, and that leads to a diagnosis, but they feel fine. We still leave those patients alone. Even with these good treatment options we have, we recognize that there are a select percentage of CLL patients that don’t ever need treatment, and so we don’t just want to start treatment in everybody.

But I do still like to check this prognostic work-up, even if I’m not going to start treatment, but I make sure and ask the patient if that’s what…iIn line with what they want. But certainly, if you’re going to start treatment, you’re required by guidelines to check a prognostic work-up, and I would really encourage the CLL patients tuning in to ask their oncologist, “What is my prognostic work-up?” if they’re going to start treatment.  Because of the oncologists, unfortunately, that have to deal with lots of other cancers, maybe don’t always know the right test to send. I’m very spoiled in that I get to just treat lymphoma and specifically focus a lot of my research in CLL and get to stay up with all this. I don’t know how a general oncologist keeps up with everything, honestly.

But the big three tests are going to be the FISH analysis, fluorescence in situ hybridization. And then IGHV mutational analysis, and then also a TP53 mutation analysis. And I don’t really have time to go through all of those, but IGHV is the question I get a lot. “What is that?” It’s one of these rare findings where it’s actually normal to have a mutation at the IGHV. IGHV stands for immune globulin heavy chain variable region, and it is usually mutated in B lymphocytes because it’s part of the process of a mature lymphocyte that is able to make a lot of different kinds of antibodies. And it undergoes somatic hypermutation, is what it’s called, as the B cell matures. Generally in oncology, the more mature a cancer is, the less aggressive it behaves and usually the easier it is to manage, and that is the case with CLL. So think of an unmutated IGHV CLL cancer as a more primitive or a more immature cancer clone, and as such, it is harder to treat.

In about half of patients will be found to be unmuted at the IGHV and historically, all we had was chemo and we knew these patients weren’t going to respond for near as long as the IGHV-mutated patients were to chemo. What’s nice is, with our targeted treatments, particularly the long-term data with the BTK inhibitors, it doesn’t look like it matters whether you’re mutated or you’re unmutated. So that’s one of the really great things with our new treatments for CLL, is it has, the people that have benefited the most are the ones that were doing the worst, so that’s great. It’s not just the patients that were already doing well, that are doing even better.

Lisa Hatfield:

So I just want to take a step back and kind of looking at this through the lens of a newly diagnosed CLL patient. You’d mention that sometimes you don’t treat every CLL patient. So is there something, if you find a patient who does not need treatment, is there something you tell the patients as far as regular monitoring? Will you monitor them to see if it progresses to the point where it requires treatment?

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

Yeah. And we’re fortunate that this is a blood cancer that most of the time we can follow with a simple blood count and follow the white count, follow how the…follow the health of the bone marrow by looking at things like anemia, low red cell count, or a low platelet count that we call thrombocytopenia. So that’s the easiest thing to follow, but I’m also talking with my patients and examining my patients. I want to know if their length nodes are causing them a lot of pain, because we should treat that, there’s no reason they should live in pain.I want to know if they’re waking up drenched in sweat all the time, if their quality of life has been really affected by that. Or are a dramatic amount of fatigue that we can’t explain by some other cause. And I also, of course, examine the nodes myself and make sure that there’s no alarming findings there. So that’s really what’s involved with checking on a CLL patient that’s on active surveillance, that’s what we call it. And there’s a list of criteria that the oncologist should know in terms of deeming who needs treatment and who doesn’t. And so we’re kind of following the same rules, so to speak, in terms of who gets treated for CLL.

Lisa Hatfield:

Okay, thank you. So we have a patient who asked a series of questions here, and I think you already…you spoke pretty well to the role of the BTK inhibitors in treating CLL. I’m going to kind of clump these together.  So I guess three questions. What treatments do you think are the most beneficial for patients whose CLL has relapsed? What are the poor prognostic indicators for CLL? And along the same lines, what are the high-risk genetic markers for CLL?

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

It’s a little more complicated discussion in the first line setting because both are options. At this point in time, we haven’t been…at least those that are, I would say, staying up to date on the CLL data, we have not been using chemotherapy for a long time. So most of the relapsed patients will have seen either one of the BTK inhibitors or venetoclax. And so what we do in the second-line setting is just use the other option that they haven’t seen. The data tells us, when you look at what treatments are being prescribed, most patients are going on BTK inhibitors, and they have been around longer than venetoclax in general. So for a lot of patients, that relapsed treatment is going to be venetoclax. Because that has the best data in terms of treating patients that have progressed on a BTK inhibitor like ibrutinib or acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib.

In the near future, we’ll have pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca) and so maybe, maybe some will get that drug before venetoclax, and that’s probably okay. And so we’ll have that additional option. The complicated patients, and I’ve alluded to this, or what do we do after BTK and Bcl-2? What are we left with? I mentioned PI3 kinase, that’s not a great option. There’s still stem cell transplant out there for young patients that are running out of options. Clinical trial is really what I would like to emphasize there.  If you’re a patient that can get to a high volume referral cancer center with a CLL specialist, I would do that. If you have seen BTK inhibitor and venetoclax and are looking for other options.

Lisa Hatfield:  

Great, thank you. So the next question is actually a really good question, I think we can broaden it a little bit. But the question is, “How can I ask my doctor to make sure I am being tested for serum markers?” And more broadly, I think a lot of patients are a little bit nervous about asking questions of their doctor, because they don’t want to feel like they’re questioning their expertise or doubting them. So how in general can we ask our doctor questions if we hear something? Or how we approach our doctor with those types of questions?

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

So I mentioned asking your doctor, “What’s my prognostic markers?” I think this is probably the easiest way to get that information. And your doctor should be checking those. The question comes up like, what are the “high-risk” markers? We talked about mutated versus unmutated. Thankfully, our novel treatments that doesn’t seem to matter. Same goes with…there’s on FISH there used to be, if you found three copies of chromosome 12, that’s called trisomy 12, that doesn’t seem to matter With our newer treatments. A deletion at chromosome 11, again, used to not do as well with chemo. Novel therapies…doesn’t seem to matter. The one that is still potentially affecting outcomes, even with our novel treatments, are chromosome 17 aberrations, which stately are rare in the initial diagnostic setting. That or a TP53. A deletion at 17p or TP53 mutation probably is only going to be around 10 percent of patients or so. And in the relapse setting though, that number goes up because of the more aggressive cancers emerge, we call that clonal evolution. So maybe in the 20-ish percent range. These patients, we tend to prioritize indefinite therapies first, because it seems like these patients do better if you keep treatment going, as opposed to interrupted therapies like venetoclax. And so we tend to treat those patients with a drug like acalabrutinib or zanubrutinib first and then think about the venetoclax later for those patients.

Lisa Hatfield:

Okay. Okay. And just to clarify, for patients too, I know that a lot of cancers, there are discussions about the 17 deletion, 17p, and then also the TP53 gene. So if I understand correctly, the TP53 gene is housed on chromosome number 17. So if that is missing, then that patient may be missing that gene, that is considered a tumor suppressor gene, which we want. Is that correct?

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

Right. So it’s either missing, which is what we see on FISH with a deletion, or it can be mutated and that’s the next gen sequencing, and often it will be both in those patients.

We think with indefinite, there’s some really good data that was just released with zanubrutinib. When they looked at 17p-deleted patients, there’s some long-term follow-up with ibrutinib-treated 17p-deleted patients. With chemo these patients would only get about a year or so, but we’re getting maybe even close to normal outcomes with long-term BTK. But we do know if you just give them a year of venetoclax and obinutuzumab for six months and then stop, they do relapse quicker than the other patients. So they relapse after about four years. As opposed to with five years of follow-up with that first line venetoclax approach, there are 62 percent of patients are still free of progression.

Lisa Hatfield:

Oh wow, okay. Thanks for explaining that too. I know that that chromosome 17 and the TP53 gene, that’s talked about in a lot of different cancers and it often come up, “How are those connected?” So thanks for just describing that a bit. So this patient is asking, “For patients who may be eligible for BTK inhibitors, are there specific comorbidities that might contribute to adverse side effects?”

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

Yeah, so we screen…all BTK inhibitors have some cardiac toxicity. They have been shown with the second-generation BTK inhibitors to have less cardiac toxicity than ibrutinib, specifically atrial fibrillation. So if you have atrial fibrillation, maybe that’s a reason why you might go on venetoclax first as opposed to a BTK inhibitor. But it’s not a contraindication to getting a BTK inhibitor if the atrial fibrillation is under good control.  Other cardiac risk factors would include difficult to control hypertension at baseline, or heart failure. These are all things that might make us think twice about using a BTK inhibitor as our first therapy, because venetoclax has no cardiac toxicities. The other thing to consider is BTK inhibitors all to a degree have, and I describe it to patients, like an aspirin-like effect on the platelets. They do interfere with the platelet binding, which so universally, patients will know to varying levels some easier bruising.

And if patients are on, because of say, they’ve had a heart attack in the past and they’re on aspirin at baseline, or what would even be more concerning if they were on a drug like Plavix because they’ve had a stent placed, that would be something that would really concern me and would definitely push me more towards venetoclax, that again, doesn’t have those anti-platelet interactions. Also, patients who are on blood thinners because of a history of blood clot or atrial fibrillation, there is the potential increased risk for bleeding and bruising there as well. None of these are absolute contraindications, they’re just all what goes into the blender, if you will, of putting lots of information in and coming up with the best treatment decision as personalized for the CLL patient. We’re blessed to have multiple options, but it does make it more of a challenge to find the “best” option.

Lisa Hatfield:

Yeah. Thank you for that. We have several questions from a couple of patients regarding side effects. So the question, “How long will my side effects of my CLL treatment last? And what can be done to reduce those?” And specifically, a patient is asking if there’s a connection with CLL and gastrointestinal issues?

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

So all of the treatments, including venetoclax, the BTK inhibitors, will have diarrhea listed as a possible side effect. It’s usually low grade. But generally, I have found the gastrointestinal toxicities abate some over time. So if they are present earlier, if you’re able to stick with therapy, they do tend to get better. For the once daily meds, I encourage those patients to try to take the drug in the evening. The GI tract tends to be less active later in the day, and you can sleep off some of the potential gastrointestinal issues. So I’ve had success there. Sometimes we have to lower the dose to just find the best dose to help mitigate some of these. There’s the antidiarrheals that can help if you need them. Imodium. I had a patient I saw earlier this week that Imodium didn’t really work, but good old Pepto Bismol did the trick from time to time. So certainly though, if the gastrointestinal issues are significantly affecting quality of life, we need to come up with a new plan, whether that’s reducing the dose or changing to a different option. Specifically, what’s nice about the BTK inhibitors is they all have data that show if you’re having problems with one, you can switch to the other and likely not have the same problem occur. So that’s nice.

Lisa Hatfield:

Have you ever seen any uncharacteristic side effects several times in your practice? Anything really unique? I’m just curious about that.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:

Yeah. There’s always the patients, they can have a more severe form of maybe, of a more common side effect, like the…we were talking about diarrhea, I’ve had a patient that actually had a difficult, with venetoclax, had difficulties with the stool incontinence. So that was kind of a severe form of that. It wasn’t so much diarrhea that was the problem. But we were able to ultimately mitigate that with a dose reduction. I would say the way, particularly if it’s an unusual side effect, the best thing to do is to take a break. If it’s a serious side effect that needs to be addressed and it’s affecting quality of life or causing problems, take a break from the treatment. If you take a week off these treatments, particularly venetoclax, taking breaks doesn’t matter. We like not to take long breaks with the BTK inhibitors. But if you take a week off, these drugs don’t have very long half-lives. So if the issue is not getting any better and you’ve been off of treatment for a week, it’s unlikely that that issue is coming from the treatment. So that’s a way I try to sort through some…particularly if they’re unusual side effects sometimes. And certainly, if we deem that the issue is connected to the treatment, I’ll usually try lowering the dose before just giving up.

Lisa Hatfield:

Okay. Thank you. A patient had asked, and I love this question because I often wonder myself when I get up in the morning, my bones are creaking and popping, “How do you know the difference between,” this patient’s talking about fatigue. How does a patient discern, “Well, this is fatigue from my cancer or my treatment,” versus just normal aging? Whether it’s fatigue or bruising or any side effect.

Dr. Ryan Jacobs:  

Yeah. Fatigue is a really…I had an attending physician when I was in my training that said, “Treating fatigue makes me fatigued.” But it’s hard. If it’s really the only problem the CLL patient is having, it can be. All those other problems I had mentioned earlier, the low red cells, the low platelets, the painful nodes, the night sweats, I with close to 100 percent certainty know I can fix those with treatment.Fatigue, I’m not as confident when that’s the only issue that a patient’s having. I try to differentiate between fatigue from other causes and old age, and specifically to CLL. 

They try to put it as a metric and say, if you’re having to spend half the day or more just lying around and you’re not able to do your normal activities of daily living, like that’s a severe level of fatigue and treatment should be considered.I’m looking for somewhat of a precipitous decline, not necessarily just kind of the gradual fatigue that you might more relate to aging. The problem with treating fatigue is you’ll look, if you look at the possible side effects of all of these medicines I talked about, fatigue will be a potential side effect.So you’re sometimes trading one problem and getting another, or maybe the fatigue does get better, but then the patient has some different side effect that’s even worse than the fatigue. So it’s hard to really help when fatigue’s the only issue. But certainly, I have helped some patients with fatigue. We don’t have a test that we can do to know for sure is the fatigue coming from the cancer, or is it coming from something else. 

Lisa Hatfield:

Great. Well, that wraps up our program for today. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Jacobs.  I am Lisa Hatfield from Patient Empowerment Network.

Share Your Feedback

Create your own user feedback survey

Emerging AML Treatment Classes Showing Promise

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Emerging AML Treatment Classes Showing Promise from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What therapies are in development for acute myeloid leukemia (AML)? Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld discusses the latest research for AML treatment, including menin inhibitors and CAR T-cell therapy.

Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld is Director of the Clara D. Bloomfield Center for Leukemia Outcomes Research at The Ohio State University and a member of the Leukemia Research Program at the OSUCCC – James. Learn more about Dr. Eisfeld.

See More From INSIST! AML

Related Resources:

Emerging AML Treatments: What Is Menin Inhibitor Therapy

 AML Treatment Approaches | Factors That Impact Options

 AML Targeted Therapy: How Molecular Test Results Impact Treatment Options

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

Are there therapies in development that are showing promise for patients with AML? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

There are so many of those. It’s hard to count. And this makes me very happy. There are exciting and again, targeted drugs.  

Once drug class is called menin inhibitors, which we – which were just published that show high promise.  

And again, very difficult to treat several groups of patients who harbor chromosome changes in MLL genes in here. So, that is a very exciting option.  

And there’s very exciting treatments with respect to what you call antibodies – monoclonal antibodies that attacks the surface proteins that are being checked regularly. And one of those, for example, is called magrolimab. And that has even promise in these high-risk leukemias or adverse risk leukemias.  

And then we are not there yet, but I’m sure we will be in the not too near future. There are also multiple trials that are looking at what we call CAR-T cells. But patients might have heard about for lymphomas or acute lymphoblastic leukemias. AML is a little more tricky with respect to those. 

But we’ve seen pre-clinical studies that look really exciting. And I think it’s just going to be just a little more fine-tuning to make those easier, available, and more targeted for AML patients. And I’m very much looking forward to seeing those come more onto the market.     

Katherine Banwell:

You mentioned the new menin inhibitors. Who are they right for?  

Dr. Eisfeld:

We try to find out more, but definitely for patients that have been shown to be beneficial for patients who have chromosomal and rearrangements of the MLL gene or KMT2A gene. And there’s also good data on patients who have NPM1 mutations.  

Even though we know – and these are mutations who harbor this kind of genetic change – have now a plethora, which is a great, of treatment options. 

Because we know even conventional chemotherapy has been working decently well in them. We know that venetoclax also is supposed to work very well in them. But again, the data on the menin inhibitor with respect to NPM1 mutations is very exciting. 

How Have Advances in Testing Impacted AML Care?

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

How Have Advances in Testing Impacted AML Care? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Recent testing advances have dramatically improved care for AML patients. Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld discusses these improvements and why every AML patient should undergo in-depth molecular testing before making a treatment choice.

Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld is Director of the Clara D. Bloomfield Center for Leukemia Outcomes Research at The Ohio State University and a member of the Leukemia Research Program at the OSUCCC – James. Learn more about Dr. Eisfeld.

See More From INSIST! AML

Related Resources:

AML Targeted Therapy: How Molecular Test Results Impact Treatment Options

 AML Treatment Approaches | Factors That Impact Options

 Emerging AML Treatments: What Is Menin Inhibitor Therapy

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Eisfeld, the landscape of AML has changed significantly in recent years. How have advances in testing improved patient care? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

It is a different world, Katherine, honestly. I mean, I started practicing in hematology in taking care of AML patients back in Germany actually in the year 2007. 

Back then, there was no other testing that was available. All we were guiding and all that we had available was morphology and cytogenetics 

And very often, it was very inaccurate. And we also only had two treatment kinds available. One was intensive chemotherapy, and one was something that was just a little bit better than best supportive care. So, many patients could not receive treatment. And the increase in knowledge that we have on a molecular level in AML really did two things at once.  On one, we understood we had a more finetuned understanding on which patients would respond. And the second thing is that this knowledge about the molecular landscape enabled us to have new treatments available that are sometimes in pill form that can target specific mutations in patients who carry these genetic changes.  

Katherine Banwell:

Should all AML patients undergo in-depth testing like biomarker testing or cytogenetics? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

Yes. Every patient should do that. It can make the difference between life and death. And it can make the difference between receiving – having a hospital stay of four weeks with intensive chemotherapy versus taking the pill at home. This is very rare that this is possible. But it is possible. And of course, you – one would not want to miss this chance if it would be possible.  

Katherine:

I’d like to get your thoughts on where we stand with progress in the field of AML. What would you like to leave the audience with? Are you hopeful? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

I am incredibly hopeful. I hope – when I started working in hematology, as I said at that time, it was just about when imatinib (Gleevec) came out. Which is this CML pill that really revolutionized care. And so, at that time, I would be – all patients on that bone marrow transplant service had chronic myeloid leukemia. And because they all had to undergo bone marrow transplant. Then Gleevec came, and today, there are no such patients who are see or very rarely that require such intensive care.  

So, I am very hopeful that in my practice time, which hopefully –and even earlier on – that there will be a time where we find targeted therapies for almost all patients.   

Low-Risk Versus High-Risk AML

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Low-Risk Versus High-Risk AML from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How is AML risk determined, and how does it affect treatment options? Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld defines low-risk and high-risk AML and explains how this classification may predict disease response to therapy.

Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld is Director of the Clara D. Bloomfield Center for Leukemia Outcomes Research at The Ohio State University and a member of the Leukemia Research Program at the OSUCCC – James. Learn more about Dr. Eisfeld.

See More From INSIST! AML

Related Resources:

Essential Testing | Optimizing AML Care With Personalized Medicine

 AML Treatment Approaches | Factors That Impact Options

 AML Targeted Therapy: How Molecular Test Results Impact Treatment Options

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

Many cancer types are typically staged. But that’s not the case with AML. AML is often considered low risk or high risk. Is that right? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

Yes. And we – I think that’s very well how you put it. And we can even – they even add an intermediate risk by now to it. And I love this question because that’s what I like to study or what I’m studying here. The one important thing to keep in mind – and this is something even many hematologists don’t think about – 

– is that the risk assignment of acute leukemia, of AML if you think about it as low, or high, or intermediate risk is risk – or is actually better said not risk, but chances to respond to conventional chemotherapy. So, the way all this was defined is that if you have, for example, a multitude of chromosomal abnormalities – as you call it complex karyotypes – it would be considered adverse. This means your chances of responding to the standard of care in terms of chemotherapy are very, very low.  

And similarly, if you have other changes such as a NPM1 mutation, your chances are considered very high. And but – so, the risk assignment with the increase of treatments now changes. We still also – and when I look at that, I think about it in the same way. But in my mind, if I’m talking to a patient, I’m trying to make sure to say, this is considered an intermediate or adverse risk.  

But this means that I would not, at the first place, consider you for a standard chemotherapy but rather advise you to participate in a clinical trial or have an alternative care. The second implication especially for younger patients would be to – if you’re intermediate or adverse risk, that you would routinely be considered for bone marrow transplant or stem cell transplant.      

Katherine Banwell:

Okay. So, what does it mean to be high risk then? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

It means that your likelihood of going into remission – the standard of care is very low.  

This means – I mean, in very practical numbers, it might be as low as 20 or 30 percent. This meaning getting the leukemia into remission, there are very important differences. The first step at every time in the same high risk means if the patient receives the treatment, how high are the chances that we can get rid of the leukemia? 

The second question is how high are the chances once it’s gone that it stays away? Or how high are the chances of relapse? In adverse risk most cases, it’s both – a combination of those. The chances of going into complete remission are lower and the chances of it coming back are higher. So, we have to be very aggressive. This means that we have to consider alternative treatment options. And even if we are then lucky and achieve remission, that we might have to move to more intensive additional treatments such as a bone marrow transplant.    

Essential Testing | Optimizing AML Care With Personalized Medicine

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Essential Testing | Optimizing AML Care With Personalized Medicine from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Personalized acute myeloid leukemia (AML) care is becoming increasingly common, but how does it work? Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld defines personalized medicine and reviews the testing that should take place to help create an individualized treatment approach for patients.

Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld is Director of the Clara D. Bloomfield Center for Leukemia Outcomes Research at The Ohio State University and a member of the Leukemia Research Program at the OSUCCC – James. Learn more about Dr. Eisfeld.

See More From INSIST! AML

Related Resources:

AML Targeted Therapy: How Molecular Test Results Impact Treatment Options

 What Is the Purpose of AML Genetic Testing

What is the Purpose of AML Genetic Testing?

 How Have Advances in Testing Impacted AML Care

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

How would you define personalized medicine as it relates to AML care? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

I define personalized medicine in AML as have a complete testing at time of diagnosis that consists of not only the morphology of the bone marrow, but we call immunophenotyping, which is looking at the surface markers, but also full review of all the chromosomes, which is called cytogenetics. And with those metaphase testing, I’m looking really at all of them and at the hot spots, which is done by a technique called FISH.  

And then most importantly, for personalized testing, it also needs to consist of testing the most common, recurrent gene mutations. Changes in the tumor DNA that we know are contributing to the disease biology and also to the response of the leukemia to different genes. 

Katherine:

I imagine that personalizing therapy for a patient requires a number of tests and then thorough review of the test results. Could you provide an overview of the tests necessary to help understand a patient’s specific AML? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

Yes. Absolutely. There are multiple things that go in. And let me –even before we go into the tests – point out one thing. Because as we talk about individualized care – and it is also important to keep in mind that it will be also dependent on the age and of the performance status of the patient. 

Because we know that all the changes that are going to be reviewed might be more or less severe depending on really the age of the patient we are discussing. The most critical aspect for every AML patient is a bone marrow biopsy and a bone marrow aspirate on which the testing that I have been referring to are performed.  

One, it gives us information about how the – after review of the hematologist, it gives us information about the specific kind of the leukemic cell.  

And very importantly – and this is a very more recent development that we know about that’s important. It also tells us whether the acute leukemia is really happening as an acute leukemia or whether the patient without knowing it before might have had a precursor issue. And this is something that by now really in just about half a year we can use in addition to direct treatment.  

So, it seems like an ancient thing that we think that the microscopic review is important. But that is one part of it.  

The second part – and this is, again, all based on the bone marrow biopsy. The inspection of chromosomes, as I mentioned, may be called cytogenetics. This test takes longer. It sometimes takes up to two weeks to result. And similar, looking at the tumor DNAs and mutations that is done either if you’re at a large institution such as Ohio State or other cancer centers. It’s done in house. Whereas at smaller institutions, it would be done by a sent-out testing that has these recommended gene mutation testings done. And some of those result just within a couple of days.  

And these are – but we can talk. And I know we are going to talk a little bit more about it later, but we now have targeted therapies available. This is a really super exciting topic we couldn’t have talked about just even five years ago. And those mutations and those DNA changes come back usually within three to five days.  

So, that we are able to decide on treatment. 

Katherine Banwell:

How can someone ensure they’re getting an accurate diagnosis? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

That’s a very good question. I think the most important part is to go to somebody who has seen acute leukemias as a living. It is a very rare cancer as you know. And if you are seen even by a general oncologist who might be a fantastic oncologist, he might just see one or two cases per year. And thus, might not be up-to-date on the newest recommendations. So, I can just advise anybody – even if he lives further away and trusts his physician a lot – to – for the diagnosis and for treatment planning, come to a comprehensive cancer center, at least for a therapy planning. Because what is now possible is many of these treatments is that we can just give advice.  

And then you can still receive treatment in some cases really back at home. But be sure the testing was done correctly. And really give you every option to take into consideration what the best treatment would be for you, what the best treatment is for the patient. Having this trip – which can be hours of a drive. And I appreciate this. Having that done once would be, I think, the best thing to do. 

What Tests Are Essential to Understand a Myeloma Diagnosis?

/in , , , , , , , /by

What Tests Are Essential to Understand a Myeloma Diagnosis? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Myeloma diagnoses can vary greatly, so it’s important to understand an individual’s disease before choosing a treatment approach. Dr. Francesca Cottini outlines the tests to better understand myeloma and explains the purpose of in-depth cytogenetic testing.
 
Dr. Francesca Cottini is Assistant Professor in the Division of Hematology at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Learn more about Dr. Cottini.

See More From INSIST! Myeloma

Related Programs:

How Close Is Personalized Medicine for Myeloma?

How Close Is Personalized Medicine for Myeloma?

 How Do Myeloma Test Results Influence Prognosis and Care?

How Do Myeloma Test Results Influence Prognosis and Care?

 Making Treatment Decisions: Understanding Common Myeloma Therapies

Making Treatment Decisions | Understanding Common Myeloma Therapies

Transcript:

Katherine:

Part of accessing more personalized care starts with test results. Dr. Cottini, what testing should take place following a myeloma diagnosis?  

Dr. Cottini:

So, once somebody is diagnosed with multiple myeloma, there are different types of tests that we need to get. Some are blood tests, some are urine tests, some are bone marrow tests, and others are just different types of imaging. So, the reason for all these tests is because multiple myeloma can kind of go everywhere and can cause the damage to different types of organs. 

So, if we look at blood tests, usually you would see that you get the complete blood count, so we can count the number of red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets. And then we’ll look at kidney function, through a chemistry profile, calcium levels, multiple myeloma can affect bone cells can affect kidneys. And then, you will see some more sophisticated tests that are really important for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma but also for monitoring and seeing if you’re actually responding to the treatment or you are progressing. 

These two tests that you can see are kind of difficult to say, but very important and needs to be remembered. So, one is called serum protein electrophoresis with immunofixation. And the other one is free light chain assays. 

And the practicum with these two tests is we can identify the specific marker of the multiple myeloma cells and it is either something monoclonal protein or M-protein or kappa light chain numbers. And as I said before, these numbers can be monitored. So, in response to the treatment, they should go down. And then, unfortunately, if we see progression, they might go up again.

And then, urine tests can also give the same type of numbers. Usually, we have our patient keep the urine for 24 hours, for a day, and we can see if there’s monoclonal proteins or light chains there, too. Then there is a least favorite test of all of them that is the bone marrow testing. So, this is very important for us, because it’s where most of the myeloma cells stay. So, we need to have a look at the bone marrow. 

We need like a piece of the bone and some of the liquid tissue to look at specific characteristics of the myeloma. And then, I said before, the myeloma can go to bones, so we need to kind of get some imaging of the bones. These are usually a set of X-rays – it’s called skeletal survey – to see if there is any area that is abnormal or at risk of fractures.  

Then, we are also looking at PET scan, which is a more sophisticated test that is based on sugar consumption. We know that myeloma cells and all cancers enjoy sugar, so with the PET scan, we can see visually where the myeloma cells are in the body.  

Katherine:

What is cytogenetics? 

Dr. Cottini:

So, this is a really interesting question. So, cytogenetics, or FISH tests, are tests that practical tests  allow us to look at the chromosomes of the multiple myeloma. 

So, everybody has 46 chromosomes, right? Multiple myeloma cells can have more of them or less of them. So, they can have – some myeloma cells have 17 chromosomes instead of 46. So, cytogenetics in the karyotype counts how many chromosomes there are. And then, there is another type of test that is called FISH test, or fluorescence in situ hybridization – I get all the difficult names – that practically look at specific area of chromosome. It can tell us if some areas of chromosomes are lost. That’s what you can read as deletions, or practically missing pieces of chromosomes. 

Or there are extra pieces of chromosomes. These are the amplification gains. Or if there are different pieces of chromosomes that stick together. And these are the translocational chromosomes. And all of these data are important for deciding for knowing how aggressive or difficult to treat the myeloma.  

Katherine:

Dr. Cottini, what mutations or abnormalities are you looking for? 

Dr. Cottini:

So, as Dr. Rosko said, and as I quickly previously mentioned, so there are different types of DNA tests that we can do. One is this FISH test, and that’s a standard test. It’s usually done practically everywhere. And it practically tells us if there are specific deletions or changes. 

And we don’t really have yet a specific medication that we know works for specific abnormalities. But all this information is important to decide, as Dr. Rosko said, number of drugs, and maybe that can be helpful in the future when hopefully thanks to the research, we will be able to say, “Based on this abnormality, you would benefit more from this type of treatment.”   

There are other types of tests. One is called DNA testing, so we look at the mutation. So, really to point to small changes of a particular gene. This is done not routinely, but I think it can still give lots of good information. And there are lots of genes that are normally myeloma, that has potential drugs that have been studied, those with multiple myeloma and any other type of cancer.  

How Are Myeloma Patients in Remission Monitored?

/in , , , , , , , /by

How Are Myeloma Patients in Remission Monitored? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How often should testing be administered when myeloma is in remission? Dr. Brandon Blue discusses how patients in remission are monitored and when a bone marrow biopsy may be required.

Dr. Brandon Blue is Assistant Member and Clinical Instructor in the Department of Malignant Hematology at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, FL. Learn more about Dr. Brandon Blue.

See More From INSIST! Myeloma

Related Programs:

Stem Cell Transplants for Myeloma: An Update

Stem Cell Transplants for Myeloma: An Update

 Should You Push for a Stronger Myeloma Treatment at Relapse

Should You Push for a Stronger Myeloma Treatment at Relapse?

 Questions and Considerations When Making Myeloma Treatment Decisions

Questions and Considerations When Making Myeloma Treatment Decisions

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Blue, how often should bone marrow biopsy be performed in the years following a stem cell transplant?  

Dr. Brandon Blue:

So, typically following stem cell transplant patients are kind of switched to what we call maintenance therapy.  

Meaning that the disease is typically under control after transplant, and our job right now is to kind of put the lid on the disease and keep that lid on so that the disease doesn’t kind of bubble over. And likely, people are on that maintenance therapy for three, four, sometimes even five years, or more. And so, sometimes when the disease is very stagnant or very stable, and people are on maintenance therapy, there may not be a need for multiple repeated bone marrow biopsies. 

Because the disease may just be in a kind of dormant or remission stage. However, at the first sign that we see that things are changing, we see that unfortunately the disease may be starting to relapse, or maybe even there’s a new pain, or things happening that just need further investigation, I think a bone marrow biopsy would be very warranted at that time.  

Katherine Banwell:

Okay. So, when patients are in a kind of remission stage you just monitor them. Do you continue to do bloodwork, and test their urine, and so on?  

Dr. Brandon Blue:

Blood, urine, imaging. Blood, urine imaging. 

Katherine Banwell:

Yeah. Blood, urine, imaging.   

Dr. Brandon Blue:

Yup. Those would be the best ways to follow it. Of course, the gold standard would be a bone marrow biopsy, but typically what happens is that the blood, the urine, and the imaging typically reflect what’s happening in the bone marrow. It’d be sometimes very unlikely for a patient’s bloodwork to be normal, but then the bone marrow to be ridden with cancer. Typically, it doesn’t work that way. There are some unique circumstances where bone marrow biopsies are needed in people who have something called non-secretory myeloma, but that’s a very small percentage. 

Expert Advice for Navigating AML Treatment and Care Decisions

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Expert Advice for Navigating AML Treatment and Care Decisions from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

AML expert Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld reviews the importance of essential testing and explains how the results may impact the care and treatment of patients with AML. Dr. Eisfeld also shares updates on new and developing AML research.

Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld is Director of the Clara D. Bloomfield Center for Leukemia Outcomes Research at The Ohio State University and a member of the Leukemia Research Program at the OSUCCC – James. Learn more about Dr. Eisfeld.

See More From INSIST! AML

Download Resource Guide

Related Resources:

How Does the Presence of Molecular Markers Affect AML Care

 Does Maintenance Therapy Have a Role in AML Care

 Advances in AML Research _ Where Do Clinical Trials Fit In

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

Hello and welcome. I’m Katherine Banwell, your host for today’s webinar. Today’s program is a part of our Insist series. We’ll discuss how to access the most personalized AML therapy for your individual disease and why it’s vital to insist on key testing. Before we meet our guest, let’s review a few important details 

The reminder email you received about this program contains a link to a program resource guide. If you haven’t already, click that link to access information to follow along during the webinar. Before we get into the discussion, please remember that this program is not a substitute for seeking medical advice. Please refer to your healthcare team about what might be best for you. Well, let’s meet our guest today. Joining me is Dr. Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld. Dr. Eisfeld, welcome. Would you please introduce yourself?  

Dr. Eisfeld:

Hi, thank you so much, Kathrine. Yes. My name is Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld. I’m currently an assistant professor and hematologist at the Ohio State University. 

And I’m also serving as the director of the Clara D. Bloomfield Center for leukemia outcomes research at the James. 

Katherine Banwell:

Thank you so much for joining us today and taking the time to discuss this important issue. To set the stage for today’s discussion, Let’s start with this important question. How would you define personalized medicine as it relates to AML care? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

I define personalized medicine in AML as have a complete testing at time of diagnosis that consists of not only the morphology of the bone marrow, but we call immunophenotyping, which is looking at the surface markers, but also full review of all the chromosomes, which is called cytogenetics. And with those metaphase testing, I’m looking really at all of them and at the hot spots, which is done by a technique called FISH.  

And then most importantly, for personalized testing, it also needs to consist of testing the most common, recurrent gene mutations. Changes in the tumor DNA that we know are contributing to the disease biology and also to the response of the leukemia to different genes.   

Katherine Banwell:

Thank you for that, Dr. Eisfield. That helps guide us as we begin our conversation.  

I imagine that personalizing therapy for a patient requires a number of tests and then thorough review of the test results. Could you provide an overview of the tests necessary to help understand a patient’s specific AML? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

Yes. Absolutely. There are multiple things that go in. And let me –even before we go into the tests – point out one thing. Because as we talk about individualized care – and it is also important to keep in mind that it will be also dependent on the age and of the performance status of the patient. 

Because we know that all the changes that are going to be reviewed might be more or less severe depending on really the age of the patient we are discussing. The most critical aspect for every AML patient is a bone marrow biopsy and a bone marrow aspirate on which the testing that I have been referring to are performed.  

One, it gives us information about how the – after review of the hematologist, it gives us information about the specific kind of the leukemic cell.  

And very importantly – and this is a very more recent development that we know about that’s important. It also tells us whether the acute leukemia is really happening as an acute leukemia or whether the patient without knowing it before might have had a precursor issue. And this is something that by now really in just about half a year we can use in addition to direct treatment.  

So, it seems like an ancient thing that we think that the microscopic review is important. But that is one part of it.  

The second part – and this is, again, all based on the bone marrow biopsy. The inspection of chromosomes, as I mentioned, may be called cytogenetics. This test takes longer. It sometimes takes up to two weeks to result. And similar, looking at the tumor DNAs and mutations that is done either if you’re at a large institution such as Ohio State or other cancer centers. It’s done in house. Whereas at smaller institutions, it would be done by a sent-out testing that has these recommended gene mutation testings done. And some of those result just within a couple of days.   

And these are – but we can talk. And I know we are going to talk a little bit more about it later, but we now have targeted therapies available. This is a really super exciting topic we couldn’t have talked about just even five years ago. And those mutations and those DNA changes come back usually within three to five days.  

So, that we are able to decide on treatment. 

Katherine Banwell:

How can someone ensure they’re getting an accurate diagnosis? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

That’s a very good question. I think the most important part is to go to somebody who has seen acute leukemias as a living. It is a very rare cancer as you know. And if you are seen even by a general oncologist who might be a fantastic oncologist, he might just see one or two cases per year. And thus, might not be up-to-date on the newest recommendations. So, I can just advise anybody – even if he lives further away and trusts his physician a lot – to – for the diagnosis and for treatment planning, come to a comprehensive cancer center, at least for a therapy planning. Because what is now possible is many of these treatments is that we can just give advice.   

And then you can still receive treatment in some cases really back at home. But be sure the testing was done correctly. And really give you every option to take into consideration what the best treatment would be for you, what the best treatment is for the patient. Having this trip – which can be hours of a drive. And I appreciate this. Having that done once would be, I think, the best thing to do.  

Katherine Banwell:

Many cancer types are typically staged. But that’s not the case with AML. AML is often considered low risk or high risk. Is that right? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

Yes. And we – I think that’s very well how you put it. And we can even – they even add an intermediate risk by now to it. And I love this question because that’s what I like to study or what I’m studying here. The one important thing to keep in mind – and this is something even many hematologists don’t think about is that the risk assignment of acute leukemia, of AML if you think about it as low, or high, or intermediate risk is risk – or is actually better said not risk, but chances to respond to conventional chemotherapy. So, the way all this was defined is that if you have, for example, a multitude of chromosomal abnormalities – as you call it complex karyotypes – it would be considered adverse. This means your chances of responding to the standard of care in terms of chemotherapy are very, very low.   

And similarly, if you have other changes such as a NPM1 mutation, your chances are considered very high. And but – so, the risk assignment with the increase of treatments now changes. We still also – and when I look at that, I think about it in the same way. But in my mind, if I’m talking to a patient, I’m trying to make sure to say, this is considered an intermediate or adverse risk.  

But this means that I would not, at the first place, consider you for a standard chemotherapy but rather advise you to participate in a clinical trial or have an alternative care. The second implication especially for younger patients would be to – if you’re intermediate or adverse risk, that you would routinely be considered for bone marrow transplant or stem cell transplant.       

Katherine Banwell:

Okay. So, what does it mean to be high risk then?  

Dr. Eisfeld:

It means that your likelihood of going into remission – the standard of care is very low. This means – I mean, in very practical numbers, it might be as low as 20 or 30 percent. This meaning getting the leukemia into remission, there are very important differences. The first step at every time in the same high risk means if the patient receives the treatment, how high are the chances that we can get rid of the leukemia? 

The second question is how high are the chances once it’s gone that it stays away? Or how high are the chances of relapse? In adverse risk most cases, it’s both – a combination of those. The chances of going into complete remission are lower and the chances of it coming back are higher. So, we have to be very aggressive. This means that we have to consider alternative treatment options. And even if we are then lucky and achieve remission, that we might have to move to more intensive additional treatments such as a bone marrow transplant.    

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Eisfeld, the landscape of AML has changed significantly in recent years. How have advances in testing improved patient care?  

Dr. Eisfeld:

It is a different world, Katherine, honestly. I mean, I started practicing in hematology in taking care of AML patients back in Germany actually in the year 2007. 

Back then, there was no other testing that was available. All we were guiding and all that we had available was morphology and cytogenetics. And very often, it was very inaccurate. And we also only had two treatment kinds available. One was intensive chemotherapy, and one was something that was just a little bit better than best supportive care. So, many patients could not receive treatment. And the increase in knowledge that we have on a molecular level in AML really did two things at once.  On one, we understood we had a more fine tuned understanding on which patients would respond. And the second thing is that this knowledge about the molecular landscape enabled us to have new treatments available that are sometimes in pill form that can target specific mutations in patients who carry these genetic changes.   

Katherine Banwell:

Should all AML patients undergo in-depth testing like biomarker testing or cytogenetics? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

Yes. Every patient should do that. It can make the difference between life and death. And it can make the difference between receiving – having a hospital stay of four weeks with intensive chemotherapy versus taking the pill at home. This is very rare that this is possible. But it is possible. And of course, you – one would not want to miss this chance if it would be possible.   

Katherine Banwell:

With all the new tools that are available, what other factors do you consider when working with an AML patient to choose a treatment approach for them? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

The most important aspects are what we call – and this is – I’m glad that you bring this question up because I feel you have to think of – and that was what we’ve been talking about – called disease-associated factors. This is everything in the leukemic cell. They – how does a leukemia looks like? How does the blast look like? What changes are there?  

That’s the biggest part of what I would call patient-associated factors: the patient age, the patient performance status, actually the patient. In every – because I think, sometimes, we forget about it. But we just look at all the molecular testing.  

But even if – for example, there would be a patient with a very good risk leukemia, where I think, “Oh, this leukemia should respond very well to an intensive chemotherapy.” 

If the patient cannot tolerate chemotherapy or – and I see it more often than I would wish for patients who are young who have a great performance status, but they just cannot – they – their family reasons. Small children sometimes – they just cannot be away for so long. This all comes into consideration. So, it’s really important because we all work together as a team. And the right treatment for the leukemia might not be the right treatment for the patient.   

And for most cases, however, I think, it will only work if one stands with a whole heart with those physicians, and patients, and family. Because it’s a long journey behind the care that’s being given. And so, this is a joint decision-making, and there are different options that can be done. Of course, I would not advise something where I would think there are no chances of success.  

And so, this has to be an open discussion. But this is – it’s very often a very tough treatment to communicate that and see what are the goals of each patient? That will be most important for treatment and decision-making.     

Kathrine Banwell:

Dr. Eisfeld, we’ve been discussing treatment choices and how they vary for individual patients. What types of AML treatment classes are currently available? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

This is a very good question. The most classic treatment class is intensive chemotherapy. This is just because people might have heard the names. It is called 3 + 7 or 7 + 3, which refers to one weeklong impatient chemotherapy treatment. But you get one chemotherapy for seven days. And the first three days, you get a second treatment as well.  

That’s why it’s called three in seven in here, but it’s a total of seven days. So, we have intensive chemotherapy. And there are different flavors of it. But this is usually the backbone. The second class is what I would call a targeted inhibitor. And here we can look at two different aspects. We have target inhibitors for a specific DNA mutation that are found. And specifically, one are called IDH or FLT3 mutations.  

And these are pill forms that I usually by now combined with a third drop class which is called hypomethylating agents. And I will go through in a moment.  

But these are pills that really only work in patients and carry that genetic change. They have very, very low toxicity and very high chances of working. So, that’s why this testing is so important to see if one is one of the 15 percent of AML patients carrying an IDH mutation – 15 percent isn’t low. And a similar rate carries a FLT3 mutation.  

And then there is also going to target inhibitors. That is targeted because it is against what I would call a pathway. The gene that is commonly activated in acute leukemia – and this is called BCL-2 and the drug is called venetoclax (Venclexta).  

This is now stormed through the acute myeloid leukemia world in just a few years ago and has been approved as a front-line treatment option for several patients, especially for those who are older. And we know that even patients who respond usually favorably to chemotherapy, some of those also respond well to venetoclax the Bcl-2 inhibitor. The benefit is that this treatment in many cases if it works, can be done as an outpatient in here and has very often lower complications.  

It is actually has so good results that I – sometimes it seems too easy. So, we actually advise patients to still try to get – the first time they get the treatment, do it at a center where it’s done more commonly. Because it sometimes – don’t underestimated the power of a pill. And it’s still a very, very powerful drug. So, doing it in a controlled setting – because if cancer cells break down, they break down and can create all sorts of trouble.  

So, that is really something – for several leukemias, it can be concerning. And again, now the treatment group would be called hypomethylating agents. The names are azacitidine (Vidaza) and decitabine (Dacogen). And they act in a very different way. They try to change the epigenetics like methylation patterns. And often, if it is an untargeted way of the tumor cells and they can be used alone.  

Or very often by now in combination with the targeted inhibitors that I was just mentioning. These are infusions that can be done either over five, seven, or 10 days depending on the combination treatment. And for patients, as I mentioned before, that don’t respond well to many other options to those patients with a complex karyotype. This is, for example, a scenario where patients can just receive this as their only therapy.          

Katherine Banwell:

What about stem cell transplant? You didn’t mention that.  

Dr. Eisfeld:

Yes. That would be the next one. So, stem cell transplant always comes as an option, which I would call as a maintenance therapy. Again, two aspects. We have two different end goals.  

First is get rid of some leukemia. Second is to make sure it stays away. And as soon as the leukemia is in complete remission, depending on the performance status – the agent. Again, in multiple different things. It’s not an easy decision. 

At that time, there has to be a conversation. And that always involves a leukemia physician and a transplant physician very often. These are different providers that goes for the risks and benefits. Where the question is if I only continue to do chemotherapy – because it’s never only once. You would always have to repeat your chemotherapy. What is the likelihood that the leukemia comes back, and does it outweigh the risks that comes with the stem cell or bone marrow transplant that comes in here. But for many leukemias, especially for young patients and for patients with higher risks, this is the only chance of a cure. That is the most curative and only curative attempt for many leukemia attempts.  

Katherine Banwell:

Where do clinical trials fit into the treatment plan? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

That is the absolute backbone. We always have to think about that. 

Everything – all the treatment options that I mentioned – have been clinical trials, just very, very short time – very few years ago. So, every patient that comes to a leukemia or a cancer center, clinical trials will be discussed if they’re available. Because they will provide a special opportunity to have even more fine-tuned treatments – either newer agents. And I think what is very important to mention is that all clinical trials that are available would give the option of the best standard of care. And then the hope that a patient wouldn’t be getting any of the best standard of care options that are approved. The hope is that the new agent or added agent in many cases would even do better.  

It’s also important that there’s a lot of additional monitoring during the trial. I think it can be seen in two ways as two parts of a coin. In one way, it may be additional visits to the hospital or additional blood draws that are necessary to be sure that the medications are safe, and that researchers and conditions can learn about it. But on the other hand, it also gives you this extra bit of being looked after and really getting checked in and out, making sure that all organs are functioning that everything is just going fine. And many patients appreciate this a lot. And they have this pair of extra eyes on them all the time.  

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Eisfeld, what therapies are available for AML patients who relapse or don’t respond to initial therapy? And is this treatment approach different from those who are newly diagnosed?   

Dr. Eisfeld:

Most of the time, the treatments available at relapse are the same available at the first diagnosis. Just because we know now that, for example, if you have a molecular marker that, for example, is available, it would act with also relatively high chance of relapse upset. However, at relapse, the most important thing I personally would do is consider a clinical trial even stronger than in the first mindset. 

Because it means that the leukemia outsmarted current treatments very often. So, usually what we would be doing is see if there is a targeted inhibitor or a cell mutation FLT3 or IDH, which I would personally always prefer to go in MLL rearrangement now for the new menin inhibitors where one would go with the same option as if it would have been their diagnosis. But if not to really consider clinical trials is a strong urge. 

Katherine Banwell:

Should patients or should relapse patients undergo genetic testing again? Is it necessary?  

Dr. Eisfeld:

Yes. At any time. Yes. Because we know that the leukemia changes. And you just can think about it in the way is that the cells that are surviving treatment, they’ve become smart. There was so much poison. There was so much treatment put on them. 

And the ones that survive might have a quiet additional chromosome change as additional gene changes. And even if a genetic change has not been present at time of diagnosis, the reason the cell has survived might have been that it has now one of these changes that came up on a later time during treatment or while the cell is hiding somewhere to come back.  

Katherine Banwell:

Are there therapies in development that are showing promise for patients with AML? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

There are so many of those. It’s hard to count. And this makes me very happy. There are exciting and again, targeted drugs.  

Once drug class is called menin inhibitors, which we – which were just published that show high promise.  

And again, very difficult to treat several groups of patients who harbor chromosome changes in MLL genes in here. So, that is a very exciting option.  

And there’s very exciting treatments with respect to what you call antibodies – monoclonal antibodies that protects the surface proteins that are being checked regularly. And one of those, for example, is called magrolimab. And that has even promise in these high-risk leukemias or adverse risk leukemias.  

And then we are not there yet, but I’m sure we will be in the not too near future. There are also multiple trials that are looking at what we call CAR-T cells. But patients might have heard about for lymphomas or acute lymphoblastic leukemias. AML is a little more tricky with respect to those. 

But we’ve seen pre-clinical studies that look really exciting. And I think it’s just going to be just a little more fine-tuning to make those easier, available, and more targeted for AML patients. And I’m very much looking forward to seeing those come more onto the market.      

Katherine Banwell:

You mentioned the new menin inhibitors. Who are they right for?   

Dr. Eisfeld:

We try to find out more, but definitely for patients that have been shown to be beneficial for patients who have chromosomal and rearrangements of the MLL gene or KMT2A gene. And there’s also good data on patients who have NPM1 mutations.  

Even though we know – and these are mutations who harbor this kind of genetic change – have now a plethora, which is a great, of treatment options.

Because we know even conventional chemotherapy has been working decently well in them. We know that venetoclax also is supposed to work very well in them. But again, the data on the menin inhibitor with respect to NPM1 mutations is very exciting. 

Katherine Banwell:

So, Dr. Eisfeld, we’ve covered a lot of information related to AML care. As a researcher, what other topics are currently top of mind for you in the field of AML? What are you passionate about? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

Again, so many parts. I think there are probably three main things that I’d like to name. And I think about it as a little bit outside the box. Most of what we know about AML, we have become so much better. It’s because we have been studying patients who were treated over the past decades on clinical trials and very often here in the U.S. or in Europe.  

 But all clinical trials have a bias in that most of them have been done A) on patients who are younger than the age of 60. And B) fewer patients of other races and ethnicities included. And had patients not included that have AML, for example, not only in the bone marrow but on extramedullary sites – how we call it – up to 10 percent of their patients. And also, very often have not been done on very old patients where the AML is very common. So, all the patients – patients from other race, ethnicities, or underrepresented minorities, and patients who present with extramedullary disease are currently in my – underserved.  

And these are exciting areas and opportunities of research and of active clinical practice. Because those are the patients we need to include if it’s possible now to include them in clinical trials. 

If there are no trials available, then make sure any other additional molecular testing it done to understand them better and to advance our disease knowledge that we make sure that we can give the best possible care.  

Katherine Banwell:

I think that the most important part is to get the molecular testing, and to enroll into clinical trials, and then to very often biobanking.  

Why am I saying that is because our knowledge AML comes from patients who donated some tissue so that we could learn – researchers decades ago could learn about the genes. We know that leukemias differ so much in between patients.  

So, I am worried that we are yet missing out on potentially important genes that need to be discovered and where we could develop docs for. This will only be possible with these additional testing. 

 The second part is to really consider going to larger treatment and larger treatment cancer center. And there are support systems in case that can help in here.  

And the third part is to get involved even as early as possible even if you’re not personally affected, with Be The Match – with bone marrow transplant because there’s a paucity of donors, of people of color that makes it harder for these patients to get a potentially curative treatment in here.  

We have other options now in bone marrow transplant where one can use only half-matching donors and or other availabilities. But again, that doesn’t outweigh that the bone marrow and donor registry that we need to get better at.  

And I can – there are just so many factors – such a high degree of structural racism that affects people from every corner. And I think we as physicians, as society, and everybody need to acknowledge that. And we have to make sure that we get better to, again, give every patient the best care and keep the patient in mind and see what’s right for them at the right moment.    

Katherine Banwell:

Where can patients or people who are interested find out about being a donor? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

There is the website called “Be the Match” that one can put in. This is probably the best way to get first information.   

And usually, at all the cancer sites. And sometimes, there is information at lab donation places, universities, either or the American Red Cross.  

Usually those places have information laid out there as well.    

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Eisfeld, before we close, I’d like to get your thoughts on where we stand with progress in the field of AML. What would you like to leave the audience with? Are you hopeful? 

Dr. Eisfeld:

I am incredibly hopeful. I hope – when I started working in hematology, as I said at that time, it was just about when imatinib (Gleevec) came out. Which is this CML pill that really revolutionized care. And so, at that time, I would be – all patients on that bone marrow transplant service had chronic myeloid leukemia. And because they all had to undergo bone marrow transplant. Then Gleevec came, and today, there are no such patients who are see or very rarely that require such intensive care.  

So, I am very hopeful that in my practice time, which hopefully –and even earlier on – that there will be a time where we find targeted therapies for almost all patients.  

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Eisfeld, thank you so much for joining us today. 

Dr. Eisfeld:

It’s an absolute pleasure. And if there are ever any questions, please feel free to reach out. For patients who reach out, we are there to talk to all of you and give advice as good as we can or put you in contact with the right people.   

Katherine Banwell:

Thank you. And thank you to all of our collaborators. To learn more about AML and to access tools to help you become a proactive patient, visit powerful patients.org. I’m Katherine Banwell. Thanks for joining us today.  

Managing Life With an MPN | What You Need to Know

/in , , , , , , , /by
MPN expert Dr. Raajit Rampal shares advice for making treatment decisions for patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV), and myelofibrosis (MF). Dr. Rampal also reviews tips and tools for managing symptoms and side effects and provides an update on new and emerging MPN therapies.
 
Dr. Raajit Rampal is a hematologist-oncologist specializing in the treatment of myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) and leukemia at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Learn more about Dr. Rampal.
 
 

Related Programs:

Thriving With an MPN | Tips for Managing Worry and Anxiety

Thriving With an MPN | Tips for Managing Worry and Anxiety

How Can You Thrive With an MPN? Advice for Navigating Care. 

 How to Treat PV-Related Itching

How to Treat PV-Related Itching 

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

Hello and welcome. I’m Katherine Banwell, your host for today’s program. Today’s webinar is a continuation of our Thrive series. And we’re going to discuss how to manage life with an MPN.  Before we get into the discussion, please remember that this program is not a substitute for seeking medical advice. Please refer to your healthcare team about what might be best for you.  

Let’s meet our guest today. Joining me is Dr. Raajit Rampal. Dr. Rampal, welcome. Would you please introduce yourself.    

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Hi. Thank you so much for having me. I’m Raajit Rampal from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center where I focus on myeloproliferative neoplasms. 

Katherine Banwell:

Thank you so much for being with us today. 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

My pleasure.  

Katherine Banwell:

As we do with each of the webinars in our Thrive series, let’s start with this question. In your experience, what do you think it means to thrive with an MPN? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

It’s a great question, right. I think taking a step back, when we think about our patients with MPNs, one of the questions I always have for patients are what are your goals. And inevitably and invariably, people want two things. They want to live longer and they want to live better. And so, I think that thinking about thriving with an MPN to me is about how do we minimize the impact of an MPN in someone’s life. And that means a couple of things. One that means how do we deal with symptoms or things that are causing medical problems. 

But two, how do we deal with the anxiety of a diagnosis? In many cases in my experience, that can be just as detrimental to somebody’s well-being as the actual physical symptoms of the disease.  

Katherine Banwell:

When it comes to choosing therapy for polycythemia vera essential thrombocythemia, or myelofibrosis, it’s important to work with your healthcare team to identify what is going to work best for you. So, to begin, would you define shared decision making and why is this critical to properly managing life with an MPN? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Yeah. Shared decision-making, to me, is really about the physician or whoever is on the healthcare team providing the patient all of the information needed to make a good decision. That means what are we trying to do? What is the medication or invention going to accomplish? What are the side effects because there are always side effects.  

And what do we think that’s going to do or how is that going to impact the patient’s life? Where things get nuanced is that patients come to us because we have expertise. There are two extremes. One extreme is that the physician says this is the medication you should take. End of discussion. The other extreme though is also not helpful, which is to say to a patient here are five choices. Here are the side effects. You pick one. Our job is to lay out those side effects and the benefits but then, also help guide a decision. 

Katherine Banwell:

What are treatment goals and how are they determined?  

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

It depends on the disease to a large extent. Now, when we’re dealing with ET and PV, the primary goal of our interventions is to reduce the risk of a clotting event or bleeding event. And that usually involves controlling the blood counts in some cases, not in all patients with ET. 

Sometimes aspirin is all we do. Myelofibrosis is a little bit more complicated because it depends on what the problem is. Not all myelofibrosis patients have the same challenges. Some have anemia that needs treatment. Some have a big spleen. Some have symptoms and some have nothing and they just need observation. So, it’s a bigger list with MF patients. But I think the first part of the discussion always is defining what the goal needs to be. 

Katherine Banwell:

What factors are considered when choosing therapy for ET, PV, and MF? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

I think a couple of things. One is what medication we think is going to benefit the patient best. That has to take into account the individual, their willingness to take certain medications, for example, pills versus interferon injection. Some people have an aversion to self-injection, which we have to take that into account. What are the other medical conditions that the patient is dealing with? 

And the reality is, in some cases, it’s cost because these medications, depending on a patient’s insurance, can have quite a different spread in terms of cost. Unfortunately, that is something we have to take into account. 

Katherine Banwell:

Let’s talk about what sort of tests should be done following an MPN diagnosis. Can you tell me about those? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Yeah. Fundamental to the MPN itself, the things that we really want to know is, in most cases, a bone marrow examination is needed because that will tell us really what the disease is that we’re dealing with. It will tell us about the genetics. I strongly believe we have to be comprehensive in our genetic assessments because that does prognosticate and sometimes gives us an opportunity in terms of treatment. Chromosomal analysis. These are the basic bread and butter hematology tests we want to do from the bone marrow to really understand what the patient’s disease is. 

Beyond that, I think that particularly in patients with PV and ET, it’s important that we partner with their primary care physicians to make sure that they’ve had, for example, testing for diabetes, a recent lipid profile, any cardiovascular tests, particularly measurements of blood pressure because these things are all important in terms of an ET or PV patient’s risk of having a blood clot. So, there are, again, things that are within hematology realm but then, there are other general health things that become really important in somebody who is diagnosed with PV or ET. 

Katherine Banwell:

How often should lab tests of blood work be done? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

It really depends on the patient. For some patients with PV, for example, they need to have their blood checked every three weeks because they’re having frequent phlebotomies. Whereas some patients with ET could probably go forward to six months between blood tests.  

So, it depends on the individual. 

Katherine Banwell:

How can results of biomarker testing affect treatment choices for patients with MPNs? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

 question. The genetics are becoming increasingly important in our treatment decisions. So, let’s take a simple example, which is patients with ET. Calreticulin and JAK2 and MPL are the three most common mutations that we see. But they have very different invocation. So, somebody could have a calreticulin-mutated ET and based on them having that calreticulin mutation and no other factors like no history of clotting, that patient may never need to go on a medication aside from aspirin. And even early on, it’s debatable whether or not some of these patients really need aspirin at all. 

Whereas somebody who had a JAK-2 mutant ET, our guidelines and data suggests that that person, once they reach a certain age, should probably be on medication. So, that’s kind of perhaps one of our more clearcut examples of a genetic biomarker telling us how to approach treatment. 

And then, it gets more nuanced from that and more exciting and interesting in the sense that there are mutations, for example, that occur in myelofibrosis and in patients whose disease is progressing towards leukemia, such as IDH mutations. And these are things that are now targetable with FDA-approved drugs.  

And there are now clinical trials combining JAK inhibitors and IDH inhibitors for patients who have more advanced disease who have these IDH mutations. So, you go from on one end, these genomic markers being of prognostic significance and now, on the other hand, we’re getting to a point where, in some cases, they might tell us how to best treat a patient. 

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Rampal, should all patients diagnosed with MPN’s undergo molecular testing? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

I strongly believe that. I think that we’ve learned so much that these tests have prognostic value. 

And in some cases, it may suggest a slightly different diagnosis. I definitely think that should be the case. 

Katherine Banwell:

What should patients be asking once they have the results? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

What does it mean? That’s the most basic and fundamental question. It’s one thing to get a list of mutations. But the real bread and butter question is what does this mean to the disease and my prognosis and my treatment?  Those are the key questions.  

Katherine Banwell:

So, what are the types of treatments available for MPNs?  And let’s start with myelofibrosis or MF. 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

If we had had this discussion five years ago, it would be pretty simple, and it would take a minute or two. And that’s completely changing and that’s amazing, and it’s good for all of our patients.  

Right now, for patients with MF, it depends on what the issue is. If the issue is symptoms or spleen, JAK inhibitors are our first line of therapy. Three approved JAK inhibitors are currently available, two on the first side ruxolitinib (Jakafi) and fedratinib (Inrebic). And pacritinib (Vonjo) can be used for patients with really low platelet counts.   

There is a fourth JAK inhibitor that we expect to be, hopefully, approved in June of this year, momelotinib. So, the landscape is about to complete broaden in terms of just JAK inhibitors.  

But beyond the JAK inhibitors themselves, there are a number of late stage clinical trials that are combining JAK inhibitors with agents that work through a different mechanism that don’t work through inhibition of the JAK pathway. So far, these drugs have all shown promise in early phase trials. Now, the definitive Phase III trials are being done. We have to wait and see what the data tells us. But if these are positive trials, this could completely alter the landscape of MPN. 

Katherine Banwell:

There’s also transplants available, right? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Correct. Transplants for more advanced patients, which comes with some major risks. And so, that has to be thought of very carefully in terms of the risks and benefit. But it is a potentially curative strategy.  

Katherine Banwell:

Let’s turn to polycythemia vera or PV. What types of treatments are available? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

It’s really quite a range. So, there are things like phlebotomy and aspirin, which has been the mainstay of therapy for many years. There are drugs like hydroxyurea (Hydrea), interferons, JAK inhibitors. So, ruxolitinib is approved in certain settings for treating polycythemia vera. So, the landscape is broad. There are a lot of questions going on right now with polycythemia vera with regards to how it should best be treated. Is the mainstay of phlebotomy and aspirin really what we should be doing or should we be giving patients treatment earlier on. 

And there is some data to suggest that. There is this drug called ropeginterferon (Besremi) that’s FDA-approved for polycythemia, which was compared in the study to phlebotomy and aspirin.  

And at least the data suggests that there may be better control of the disease and less progression possibly, and it’s a small number of patients, by treating patients earlier. Whereas we would have just given phlebotomy and aspirin. So, it’s something to consider. There are drugs in clinical trials as well that look promising one of which is called rusfertide, which actually works by changing the way iron is used by the body. 

Iron is a key component to hemoglobin and it is, of course, a key component to polycythemia in the sense that we phlebotomize patients to make them iron deficient and that’s how we control the disease. But this is a pharmacological way to do that. So, that drug is now in Phase III trials. So, that may also alter the landscape of treatment of PV in the near future. 

Katherine Banwell:

Finally, how is essential thrombocythemia treated? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

So, in some cases, with absolutely nothing as we had talked about a moment ago. There is some thought that in really, really low-risk patients. Maybe you don’t need to do anything except observe them. Whereas most patients are on an aspirin. And beyond that, we have drugs like interferon, pegylated interferon, and hydroxyurea and anagrelide, all of which can be utilized. It’s not entirely clear if there is one distinct first line treatment that is the best but these drugs are all active. JAK inhibitors have been studied in this setting. And to date, the data hasn’t led to their approval but, certainly, people have studied it.  

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Rampal, how can you tell if a treatment is effective? Are there signs that you look for? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Well, I think it’s a couple of things.  

One, are we meeting the treatment goals in terms of are we controlling blood counts with ET or PV? That’s one of the first principles in management. And with regards to MF, the same thing. Are patients’ symptoms being controlled? Is the spleen being adequately controlled? And then, there’s the symptom burden because just because the blood counts are being controlled, patients may still have symptoms, in which case, they are not being adequately treated. And then, we have to do our best to try to find a treatment strategy that does control their blood counts but also does control their symptoms. 

So, there is the blood count perspective but there is the symptom perspective as well. 

Katherine Banwell:

How do you know when it’s time to change treatments? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Well, I think really two things. One is if we aren’t meeting our goals like we just talked about. But the other aspect of that is if we are incurring toxicities that are just not tolerable to the patient and that’s a reason to change therapy always. 

Katherine Banwell:

Many patients, of course, worry about disease progression. Are there key predictors or tests for progression that patients should know about? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

This is a key area of investigation currently. I think one of the things that patients say to us so often when we meet them is what’s going to happen to me. And right now, we don’t have great prediction tools. We can say on a population level well, there is X percent of chance of progression at 15 years. That’s useful if you’re talking about a population. That’s not really useful if you’re talking to an individual. Because if I say to somebody there’s a 20 percent chance of your disease progressing to leukemia, it doesn’t really make a difference. That’s a meaningless statement because if you’re in the 20 percent who progress, it’s not a relevant statistic anymore.  

It’s sort of a binary thing. We’ve got to do better at developing this. This is something that the MPN Research Foundation is really heavily invested in in trying to identify predictive biomarkers. 

If we can do that, then perhaps what we can do is say to a patient this is really what we think your actual risk is. And then, the next step is asking the question if we intervene early, can we prevent that progression from occurring. So, that’s where I think we need to go. We aren’t there yet. 

Katherine Banwell:

What signs or symptoms do you look for that may indicate that the disease is progressing? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

The blood counts are often the canary in the coal mine regardless of the disease. They can tell us if ET or PV is progressing into MF or whether MF is progressing to more of a leukemic phase. Changes in symptoms sometimes can be a harbinger of disease progression. So, Patient 2, for example, is doing really well and now, he’s having drenching sweats and losing weight. So, those types of symptoms are a sign that physical findings is the size of the spleen if it’s increasing. 

All of those things together give us a hint about progression.  

Katherine Banwell:

Well, is there any way to prevent progression?  

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

That is the million dollar question. Again, that’s where we ultimately need to be. We want to be able to intervene to a point where patients don’t get that sick. It would be amazing if we’d come to the point where we can intervene early and nobody progresses to late stage MF. Nobody gets leukemia. And I think that’s a worthy goal. That’s not something that we should think is too lofty of a goal. That should be our ultimate goal here. And a number of groups are investigating this exact question. It’s complicated and it’s going to take time. But I think that’s a worthwhile investment. 

Katherine Banwell:

Let’s talk about MPN symptoms and treatment side effects. Here’s a question we received from a viewer before the program. How common is peripheral neuropathy in primary myelofibrosis? 

And what is the best treatment for it? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Well, by itself, it’s not a very common symptom of MF by itself. Can it be a symptom? Sure. But there are also a number of things that can cause peripheral neuropathy. So, I’m not sure there’s a best treatment.   

But what needs to be done is a thorough investigation. There can be a number of causes. It could be nerve injury. It could be a deficiency in vitamins like B12. There are a lot of things that could cause it. So, that type of a symptom needs to be thought of in a broad way in terms of diagnosis.  

Katherine Banwell:

Jeff sent in this question. How could I manage the itching? Are there new treatments or strategies to live with itching? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Very common thing. And it’s an interesting thing explaining to when we teach our trainees about this symptom, we have to impress on them the fact that itching is not the itching that everybody else experiences. 

This is a very profoundly different symptom. It’s debilitating for so many people. I have patients who go to the Emergency Room for that. That’s how terrible it could be. There are a lot of things that could be tried. JAK inhibitors, in my experience, work very well for itching but not in everybody. We use sometimes antihistamines that can work well. Sometimes, antidepressants can work well, not because they’re treating depression but because of other properties that they have. And sometimes, UV light therapy can be useful tool here, too. A lot of patients swear by it. 

 Katherine Banwell:

Another common side effect is fatigue. Do you have any advice for managing this symptom? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Fatigue is the most common symptom across MPNs. And it is also one of the most difficult things to treat. Part of the issue is trying to figure out what does fatigue mean to the patient.  

When someone says they’re tired, does that mean they’re sleeping all of the time? Does that mean they don’t have get up and go? The first step is always understanding what does fatigue mean to the patient? And then, the second is trying to dissect that. In some cases, it’s related to anemia, in some cases, it’s not related to anemia and it’s just the disease itself.  

And in some cases, you have to think outside of the box about general medical issues like thyroid dysfunction that could be at play here. So, there isn’t one best fit. 

But the first test is always to dig deep. When someone says they have fatigue to dig deeper and try to figure out what is that really. 

Katherine Banwell: 

What other common symptoms do you hear about from patients? And what can be done about those?  

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

There are a lot of different things. It’s a spectrum. So, I think that itching and fatigue are very common. Feeling full early is, that’s a big thing, particularly in myelofibrosis patients.  

Bone pain, that’s another big one, particularly in myelofibrosis. There is not one therapy that is best for all. I think the JAK inhibitors, certainly, benefit many of these symptoms. But they don’t benefit everybody and not to the extent that makes it tolerable for everybody. So, often times, we struggle with this and try a lot of different things. But, again, I think one of the things to always remember is we don’t always want to say that this must be because of the MPN. Sometimes, symptom is arising because of another medical condition that’s going on concurrently. 

Katherine Banwell:

That’s good advice. Thank you. Let’s answer a few more audience questions we received. This one is from Calvin, “If your hematologist says you’re stable and responding well to Hydrea, should you still seek out a second opinion?” 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

It’s never wrong to seek out a second opinion. I strongly believe that, especially when you’re dealing with a disease that’s rare like this. 

And even seeking out a second opinion, even if you’re under the care of an expert in the field is never a wrong thing. I think that no one person knows everything. And sometimes, people’s experience and perspective is different. So, I don’t think that’s a bad thing ever.  

Katherine Banwell:

As a follow-up to Calvin’s question, is it sufficient to just look at what the blood tests reveal? Or does having  bone marrow biopsy dictate what treatment you should follow? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

I think the bone marrow is important, particularly at initial diagnosis or when there is a change. The blood counts are the canary in the coal mine. So, they tell us is there something else going on that we’re not thinking about. And that’s when the bone marrow becomes important. So, I definitely think bone marrow is important at certain points in the disease.  

Katherine Banwell:

Sandra has this question, “Are there new treatments for polycythemia vera being researched beyond interferon?” 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Yeah. So, we talked about rusfertide as an example of this. And there are, certainly, other drugs that have been evaluated in this space. So, there is a lot of work going on for this disease, which is really encouraging. 

Katherine Banwell:

Carolyn sent in this question, “Is there a possibility of bone marrow fibrosis reversal in myelofibrosis without a stem cell transplant?” 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

The answer is yes. So, even with JAK inhibitors, we see that about a third of patients will have a reduction in bone marrow fibrosis. And this is a key question being investigated with some of the newer therapies that are being introduced into the treatment of myelofibrosis. And, certainly, we’ve seen data to date that suggests that the fibrosis can be reduced if not potentially eliminated in some cases.  

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Rampal, should all patients diagnosed with MPNs undergo molecular testing? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

I strongly believe that. I think that we’ve learned so much that these tests are prognostic value. 

And in some cases, it may suggest a slightly different diagnosis. I definitely think that should be the case. 

Katherine Banwell:

What should patients be asking once they have the results? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

What does it mean? That’s the most basic and fundamental question. It’s one thing to get a list of mutations. But the real bread and butter question is what does this mean to the disease and my prognosis and my treatment?  Those are the key questions. 

Katherine Banwell:

Andrew wants to know does Jakafi cause other mutations to develop? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

That’s a really good question. Right now, we don’t think the answer is necessarily yes. We have seen that in some patients where the disease has progressed on Jakafi, mutations have emerged. 

But the problem is that genetic testing has limits of detection. In other words, the mutation appears, it may not have just appeared or been caused by the drug but that it may have been below our limits of detection and actually grew while the patient was on therapy, which does not mean that the drug caused the mutation but that it was allowed to emerge during treatment with the specific drug. So, that is an area of investigation.  

Katherine Banwell:

Well, thank you, Dr. Rampal. And please continue to send in your questions to question@powerfulpatients.org and we’ll work to get them answered on future webinars.  

You mentioned earlier clinical trials. And I’d like to dig a little bit deeper. Where do these fit into the treatment plan? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

I think they should always be considered. None of the therapies that we have do we consider curative. And in many cases, standard therapy is fine given a patient’s clinical situation. In a case where standard therapy is not working or where we think that a patient’s prognosis is particularly challenging, or if they have mutations that may confer resistance to current therapies. 

I think in those scenarios, a trial should always be considered. 

Katherine Banwell:

So, if a patient is interested in possibly participating in a clinical trial, what kinds of questions should they be asking their healthcare team? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

All of these trials are different. I think the first thing is to discuss what’s the risk, what’s the benefit of any given trial or drug. What stage and development is it? What’s the evidence to support it? And what can I expect from it?   

Katherine Banwell:

What about cost? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

So, trials, in general, have two components. One is what we call standard of care meaning that things we would do normally for in the course of a patient’s treatment would be billed to a patient’s insurance as if they weren’t on a trial. 

Almost all trials, the study drug or any tests that are being done specifically with regards to the study drug are all covered by whoever is sponsoring the trial.  

Katherine Banwell:

How do patients find out about where the clinical trials are taking place? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Usually, their physician should either, if they’re in a specialized center, they’ll have access there. But if they’re interested in trials and they’re being seen, for example, by a physician in the community who doesn’t necessarily specialize, asking for a referral to a major center where that MPN expertise is not an unreasonable approach to that. There is also clinicaltrials.gov where patients can go look for ongoing trials for their particular diagnosis.  

Katherine Banwell:

So, if patients want to learn more about MPNs, what sort of resources would you recommend? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

The thing I always say to patients is the internet is a very dangerous place for a variety of reasons. We have to, I think, do a good job of communicating to patients what are the resources. And the ones that I always point patients to are, for example, the MPN Advocacy International, the MPN Research Foundation, The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and the American Cancer Society. Those are sources of information that are vetted by physicians. 

Some of that information is specifically for patients. Those, to me, are good sources for patients to read.  

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Rampal, as we close out our conversation, I wanted to get your thoughts on where we stand with progress and MPN care. Are there advances in research and treatment that make you hopeful? 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

Without a doubt. I think I’ve seen more progress in the last three years than I’ve seen in the last 10 years. And we have so many new drugs coming forward, new questions that we’re trying to answer, tough questions as you alluded to. The question about prognosis but also intervening early to prevent progression of disease. These are things that are difficult questions that we are trying to dig into now. So, I think we should be optimistic. We are seeing so many excellent developments. We’ll have to see how far they’re going to take us. I don’t think we know the answer to that. But this is an exciting time.  

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Rampal, thank you so much for joining us. 

Dr. Raajit Rampal:

My pleasure.  

Katherine Banwell:

And thank you to all of our partners. To learn more about MPNs and to access tools to help you become a proactive patient, visit powerfulpatients.org. I’m Katherine Banwell. Thanks for being with us today.   

30-Year Acute Myeloid Leukemia Survivor Shares His Journey

/in , , , , , , /by

30-Year Acute Myeloid Leukemia Survivor Shares His Journey from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What might acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients experience for symptoms, treatment, and coping with AML? AML patient and Empowerment Lead Art Flatau shares the experience of his AML journey from diagnosis, through treatment and AML survival, and advancements in AML treatments.

Art also shares his empowerment advice for patients and care partners to ensure optimal care and how he has found a sense of purpose in patient advocacy efforts.

See More from [ACT]IVATED AML

Related Resources:

Empowered AML Patient: Ask the AML Expert

Empowered AML Patient: Ask the AML Expert 

 How an AML Survivor’s Resilience Saved Her Life

How an AML Survivor’s Resilience Saved Her Life 

 Advice for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Seeking a Clinical Trial

Advice for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Seeking a Clinical Trial 

Transcript:

My name is Art, and I live in Austin, Texas. In 1992, I was 31 and married with two young children. I was in graduate school and working full-time. For a couple weeks, I had been feeling tired and had been running a low-grade fever. I also had a lot of bruises, probably because I was playing rugby at the time. I thought the fatigue was because I was overworked and getting  too little sleep.

On Saturday, I had a rugby game but was too tired to play more than a few minutes. The next day, I was too tired to do much. My wife and I decided that I would go to the doctor on Monday. 

Monday morning, I woke, and there was blood on my pillow as my gums were bleeding. My wife wanted to take me to the ER, but I convinced her to just call our doctor. I went to the doctor later that morning. She noted my symptoms, did a quick exam, and sent me for blood work. After lunch, she called and said I needed to go to the hospital and see a hematologist. I knew I was in trouble.

We talked to the doctor and he said, “We have to see what kind of leukemia you have.” What a shock.  I knew that I was sick with something I had not had before. The fact that it was cancer was a shock. I didn’t know that there were different types of leukemia but soon found out that I had acute myeloid leukemia (AML).

That evening, I received platelets and red blood transfusions. The next morning, I had a bone marrow biopsy, more platelets, and surgery to put in a central line. That afternoon, less than 24 hours after hearing the word leukemia in reference to me, I started chemotherapy. This was all overwhelming. We had no way to understand what our options were or to get a second opinion.

Three-and-a-half weeks later, I got out of the hospital with no hair, 25 pounds lighter, a lot weaker but alive. I had more chemotherapy in the next few weeks and more hospitalizations. A few months later, I was finished with chemo. I regained some strength, regrew my hair, and tried to get my life back to normal.

In early 1993, about 9 months after being diagnosed, we got another shock, I had relapsed. I needed to have a bone marrow transplant. Although we had a little time, a few days to figure out where to go for a transplant, we were again struggling to understand the process. We were also struggling to figure out how to move to Dallas for three more months for the transplant. The transplant was a long grind, a month or so in the hospital, a couple of months of going to the outpatient clinic two to three times a week, but we made it through. 

Now, 30 years later, I’m still around. My children graduated from high school, college, and graduate school and have successful careers. My wife and I are empty-nesters.  I am still working but hoping to retire in a few years. Although I consider myself very lucky to have survived and have had relatively few side effects, I do have some side effects to deal with, including low testosterone.

Some things that I’ve learned during my AML journey include: 

  • AML is a rare disease: The good news is that over the last several years a lot of new treatments have been discovered for AML. These new treatments are leading to more people surviving AML. However, these new treatments are evolving rapidly. It is important to find a cancer center and doctors who treat a lot of patients with leukemia. 
  • Consider volunteering: Advocacy work is an excellent way to help yourself and to support other patients and continued research efforts.
  • If something doesn’t feel right with your health, advocate for yourself and ask for further testing.

These actions (for me) are key to staying on my path to empowerment.

Share Your Feedback About [ACT]IVATED AML

What Is Minimal Residual Testing in Multiple Myeloma?

/in , , , , , /by

What is Minimal Residual Testing in Multiple Myeloma? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How is minimal residual testing (MRD) used for multiple myeloma patients? Watch as expert Dr. Nina Shah explains the use of MRD testing, and myeloma patient and Empowerment Lead Lisa Hatfield shares her knowledge of MRD testing and how specialists use it in treatment and care.

Download Guide

Descargar Guía

See More from START HERE Myeloma

Related Resources:

Where Should I START Following My Myeloma Diagnosis

Where Should I START Following My Myeloma Diagnosis?

 What is a FISH Test

 What is Early MGUS

Transcript:

Dr. Nina Shah:

Minimal residual disease is exactly what it sounds like. It’s the disease that you can’t see under the microscope, but it’s still there. And I sort of equate it to the little deep food particles that are in a pot after you clean it and really, really scrub it, but still, something is in there. And that’s what it is for myeloma.

Minimal residual disease testing, or MRD testing, is performed to locate any small number of cancer cells that remain in the cancer patient’s bone marrow during or following treatment. The presence of any remaining cancer cells is the most common cause of relapse in blood cancers, so MRD testing is used to gauge treatment success, to compare different treatments, to detect myeloma recurrence, to monitor patient remission, and to help choose optimal treatments. 

Lisa Hatfield:

So when I was first diagnosed, MRD testing, or minimal residual disease testing, sometimes called measurable residual disease testing, was just, they were looking at having it approved by the FDA for clinical trials only. Still it was only approved for clinical trials as an end point. However, a lot of myeloma specialists are using this MRD testing to help guide decisions. It’s not approved for that yet but to help guide decisions for patients who have a really great response to their induction chemo and stem cell transplant that they may have after induction chemo and after some years of maintenance to see if they can possibly go off of their maintenance therapy. It is occasionally being used, MRD testing, is being used to help guide providers and patients on where to go with treatment. So MRD testing requires a bone marrow biopsy. The most sensitive MRD testing is called clonoSEQ testing, it is NGS testing. It does require the original bone marrow sample, and then they can track that over time each year or however often you have bone marrow biopsies to see if the cloned cells are still there.

So MRD testing right now requires the bone marrow biopsy. I’m hoping that someday it can be done with a blood test, but it’s really important for tracking purposes to see if you’re responding to therapy, to see if you’re staying in remission during maintenance therapy. And it’s even worthwhile too if you’re having toxicities from maintenance therapy to consider going off of that therapy. You can test to see, right now the MRD testing is testing to see if they can find one myeloma cell out of one million cells. So it’s called 10-6 MRD testing. That’s the most sensitive test that’s out there to date and really important if you’re considering possibly going off of maintenance therapy or are having significant toxicities during your treatment.

What Is a FISH Test?

/in , , , , , /by

What is a FISH Test? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What is a FISH test for multiple myeloma patients? Watch as expert Donna Catamero explains how fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) testing is used, and myeloma patient and Empowerment Lead Lisa Hatfield shares her experience with FISH testing and her advice to other patients.

Download Guide

Descargar Guía

See More from START HERE Myeloma

Related Resources:

How is Multiple Myeloma Diagnosed and What Testing is Necessary After

How is Multiple Myeloma Diagnosed and What Testing is Necessary After?

 What is Minimal Residual Testing in Multiple Myeloma

 What is Early MGUS

Transcript:

Donna Catamero:

So, FISH is a cytogenetic technique. So, what we do is, when we do the bone marrow, we send that off and we look at the genetics. Like I said, it’s a snapshot. And certain mutations will put patients in different risk stratifications, so we normally do this at the time of diagnosis and then with each relapse.

In a FISH test, a bone marrow biopsy is taken to map out the genetic material of a cell using fluorescent dyes. These dyes show specific parts of chromosomes and help locate genetic issues like 11;14 translocation, 17 deletion, and others that are important in determining multiple myeloma treatment. If you have not had a FISH test, make sure to ask your doctor if the test should be performed to aid in your diagnosis and treatment.

 

Lisa Hatfield:

The first time I heard FISH test I had no idea what my doctor was talking about. It was actually a nurse practitioner who works with my myeloma specialist who said, “Your FISH test came back, and you have two abnormalities. One of them is called translocation 11;14, standard risk. And one is called monosomy 13, which sometime in the past used to be considered a higher risk but apparently it’s not anymore.” She was trying to explain this to me. I had no idea what she meant what a FISH test was. As time went on and I started to study a little bit more, do a little bit more research on myeloma, I understand the significance and the importance of having a FISH test done for anyone who’s getting diagnosed at a local hospital or community cancer center. I encourage everyone to make sure they can have a FISH test done even if that means consulting with a myeloma specialist to ensure that they can find those cytogenetic abnormalities or to test for those. Because that will help guide your treatment and your prognosis going forward. You want to know what those cytogenetic abnormalities are. They’ll be tracking those over time. So a FISH test is kind of confusing. But without going into too much detail, it’s an interesting test that they can do. It’s very helpful if it’s done at diagnosis. Important to be done at diagnosis,  so those genetic abnormalities can be tracked over time through further testing.

How is Multiple Myeloma Diagnosed and What Testing is Necessary After?

/in , , , , , /by

How is Multiple Myeloma Diagnosed and What Testing is Necessary After? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What testing is involved in multiple myeloma diagnosis and treatment? Watch as myeloma expert Dr. Elizabeth O’Donnell explains specific types of myeloma testing and what they check for, and patient and Empowerment Lead Lisa Hatfield shares testing that she’s received and typical tests for myeloma diagnosis and care.

Download Guide

Descargar Guía

See More from START HERE Myeloma

Related Resources:

What Are the Beginning Stages of Multiple Myeloma (MM)

What Are the Beginning Stages of Multiple Myeloma (MM)?

 Where Should I START Following My Myeloma Diagnosis

 How is Multiple Myeloma Staged

Transcript:

So how is multiple myeloma diagnosed? The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) confirms diagnosis with both:

  • Presence of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow at greater or equal to 10 percent or presence of extramedullary or bony plasmacytoma, confirmed with biopsy
  • CRAB features:
    • Calcium elevation: serum calcium greater than 0.25 mmol/L (> 1mg/dL) higher than the upper limit of normal or greater than 2.75 mmol/L (> 11 mg/dL)
    • Renal failure (or kidney failure): creatinine clearance less than 40 mL per minute or serum creatinine greater than 177 μmol/L (> 2 mg/dL)
    • Anemia: hemoglobin concentration of greater than 2 g/dL below the lower limit of normal, or a hemoglobin concentration of less than 10 g/dL
    • Bony lesions: one or more osteolytic lesions found on X-ray, CT scan, or PET‑CT scan
  • Ratio of involved/uninvolved serum free light chain ratio greater than or equal to 100
  • Clonal plasma cells in the bone marrow greater than or equal to 60 percent
  • One or more focal lesions found on MRI studies (measuring a minimum of 5 mm in size)

Dr. Elizabeth O’Donnell:

Testing really does depend a little bit on the stage at which your disease is found. In general, we use a very specific blood test that lets us know that there is clonal protein present. Remember, plasma cells are a type of white blood cell, and they make something called antibodies. We use a test called a serum protein electrophoresis, which is a blood test – an SPEP, we call it – that can tell us the difference between normal, healthy antibody and clone that are made from the plasma cells that we see in MGUS, smoldering, and multiple myeloma…once we identify that there’s a plasma cell disorder, then that can set in place a workup, depending on the amount of clonal, monoclonal, M-protein that we see.

So, sometimes that involves bone imaging. Historically that was a skeletal survey where we took lots of X-rays of your body. Now we have other tests we use. PET scans, CT scans, whole body MRIs. Sometimes it depends where you’re getting your treatment, and also it depends a little bit on your doctor’s degree of suspicion. 

 Lisa Hatfield:

So my myeloma was diagnosed using a scan. An MRI was done of my spine, and that’s when my doctor saw the plasmacytoma in my spine. Further testing indicated that I had something called kappa light chain myeloma. So a lot of patients will have regular tests done, blood work that may show anemia. I think if anybody has an indication of myeloma, further testing should be looked at. There’s something called a light chain assay, a normal CBC, a metabolic panel, a light chain assay was critical in my case, because all my protein levels were coming back normal. Some patients have an elevated level of protein in their blood. Mine was normal. So having all the standard blood work plus having the light chain assay done.

And then really the gold standard for diagnosing myeloma, unfortunately, right now is a bone marrow biopsy. It’s not fun. It’s not horrible. So for patients who are anticipating that, you can get through it. It will be okay. That is the gold standard for diagnosing the myeloma,  the type of myeloma, and then any cytogenetics related to that myeloma that help guide the therapy that you might be getting going forward.

What Can I Expect During a Bone Marrow Biopsy?

/in , , , , , , , /by

What Can I Expect During a Bone Marrow Biopsy? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Myeloma patient advocates Lisa and Sujata share their experiences with bone marrow biopsies – what to expect and how to prepare.

Download Guide

Descargar Guía

See More from START HERE Myeloma

Related Programs:

How to Approach the “Alphabet Soup” of Myeloma Treatment

Transcript:

Sujata Dutta:

And then there was one more thing that you spoke… When we started with the conversation, BMB. Let’s talk about BMB the dreaded swear word.  

Lisa Hatfield:

It is next to dex. I think it’s the second. Maybe it’s equal with Dexamethasone, people talk about dex being the worst thing about myeloma, the BMB, the bone marrow biopsy. Yeah. Did you have one? Right when you were diagnosed?  

Sujata Dutta:

Yes, and it wasn’t a pleasant experience. I was obviously, as I mentioned, I had a surgery an emergency surgery, it was pretty… It lasted for six hours and I was wrapped up in all sorts of things, and then I had to have the BMB while I was on an ICU bed, so… Totally not in the best place to start, and it was the first time I was going to have it. So it wasn’t a pleasant experience. It was super painful, they could not sedate me for obvious reasons, because whatever was going on, but post that I had the next BMB, I’ve had a couple… I’m not sure that’s a good thing or a bad thing, the next one, I had it in Mayo and I learned that I could actually be partially sedated and so I wouldn’t feel anything, which was like, Oh my gosh, I thought that was the best discovery mankind had ever made. And ever since then, I’ve always requested for being seated through that process, because otherwise it can be really, really painful, so I don’t know if you want to talk about what the procedure is. I am going to assume some of the folks here have been through this, unfortunately. 

 
Lisa Hatfield:

Yeah, because the bone marrow biopsy is the only way to actually see the myeloma cells, the cancerous plasma cells, it is necessary, it’s also necessary to get it done so they can diagnose the genetic abnormalities, the cytogenetics. But yes, I actually had a little bit different experience. So again, every patient is so different, I prefer not to be sedated because I don’t like sedation, I don’t like the way I feel, I don’t feel good when I have it, so I did have it done and I was… Where I went the first time they didn’t offer sedation, it was, this is 20 minutes, and it wasn’t comfortable.

I will admit that I didn’t like the worst part for me was when they numb the area with lidocaine, they gave you the little shots before they do that, so I’ve had six of them total now, but I’ve had the most recent one. The sixth one I had, they did sedate me and I think it’s conscious sedation, so it’s like you said light sedation, I don’t remember any of it, but I didn’t like it because I had two days of recovery from the anesthesia, so… Yeah, so I think the… 

Going back to somebody who’s maybe anticipating it for two nights straight, I couldn’t sleep, I was so nervous about the bone marrow biopsy, I just thought This is going to be so painful. I had excruciating pain in my spine anyway, ’cause it was collapsing as I was going through, I had radiation first, so the bone marrow biopsy didn’t seem to affect me quite as much the first time, but this last time, it seemed to be a little more uncomfortable, especially afterwards, but from my understanding from the bone marrow biopsy, they go in either with the needle, basically the thick needle or where you go to the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale uses as a drill, and I guess that’s supposed to be faster, and a lot of people think it’s more comfortable, go into the bone marrow and try to take some of that bone marrow out… The soft part of the bone out, they actually take two different samples, but I think the most, uncomfortable part if you’re not sedated, I think is that vacuum-type feeling, and then there’s like a pop… And that was super uncomfortable. I thought that was probably the worst part of not sure if it’s pain or discomfort or what, but I do remember that looking back though, now, every time I’ve had one, I always say that wasn’t so bad.  

I remember it, but it wasn’t… I don’t remember it being too bad, so what they do is they will collect enough… They usually have a lab person available as they’re to make sure that they have enough of a sample and the right… The right cells and enough of it, so they usually will only go in once I had one where they had to go back in a second time to try to aspirate some more… The bone marrow, they’ll look at that takes a few days to go through the lab and look at that and see what your genetic abnormalities are with the myeloma cells themselves, and what the volume of cancer cells is in your bone marrow.

But yeah, I just remember, either way, if you’re sedated, you don’t feel it at all while it’s happening, if you’re not sedated, you can feel, especially when they’re numbing it up, the lidocaine shots and that stings, it’s a sting three or four times and takes a little time for it to set in, and then that suction that pop, that’s what was the most uncomfortable, and I think that really the most pain that I felt was the bruise-like pain, the couple of days afterwards, they’re not walking, but just sitting on it is bandaged up really…  

Well, you can’t take a shower for a day, but when I would go to sit on it, it just got bruised, but… Yeah, the bone marrow biopsy, nobody looks forward to those… It’s nice to know that there is something in the works, even mass spec testing, which isn’t quite as sensitive… It’s nice to know that there’s something that works, to maybe look at other ways to test for the myeloma. Yeah, not fun. It’s a necessary thing though that when people are diagnosed with multiple myeloma.  

Sujata Dutta:

That’s absolutely the true statement. I don’t like it at all. I am also anxious before I have my… I’ve had four now, so… And every year I’ll have to have one, so I know that that’s a necessity, as you said, I do feel anxious, but I keep telling myself this is needed to assess overall disease involvement and hopefully the results are better than last year, so I kind of… That’s how I sort of create some positive energy around that experience because it’s not a pleasant experience, and as you said, it does hurt for a couple of days after I actually have… Sometimes it goes on for a week that I have, or discomfort, but again, each to his own people might have different experiences, but I think the more we talk about it, the more we hear other people’s experiences, we might just feel like, Hey, mine was not all that bad, I look at her, him, what they’ve gone through and things like that, or even just thinking like… It’s different, it’s nuance.

Everybody goes through different experiences like you prefer not being seated, I prefer being sedated, so it depends on each one’s experiences, but the bottom line is there are options available, everybody understands, it’s a difficult procedure, everybody understands it’s not pleasant, nobody wants to put the pain through that if they had a choice. 

Right now, we don’t have one, so I think just thinking about in a positive way and embracing it, I guess might just help, it helps me, so I’m hoping that it helps others as well, just changing the perspective a little bit.  

Lisa Hatfield:

Yes, so who does your bone marrow biopsies? I’ve been to… Sometimes a nurse practitioner does them and sometimes an RN does mine, and I know some of our local doctors do them, oncologists do them, what type of professional does your bone marrow biopsies?  

Sujata Dutta:

With Mayo, I’ve had it twice there, they have specialists, they have a whole team that does obviously Mayo, they do like MM treatments, like they have 500 patients doing biopsies every year. That’s what I heard. I had mine there too, so it’s a well-oiled machine, they just have departments for every little thing, so that’s different, but even when I do it with my local cancer center, they have a specialized team, so it’s not the nurses, there’s a specialized team. There’s a different procedure.

Again, it’s different to how Mayo does it. When I do it at my cancer center, they actually do a scan before I have a BMB, and to make sure that they’re going in the right place. Which I thought like Wow, that’s great. Just as a second level of precision, but yes, that’s different to Mayo, but it’s always like a specialist doing it for me.  

Lisa Hatfield:

Yeah, and then how often do you have to have those on a regular basis, like annually or just as things change with treatment? 

Sujata Dutta:

Annually. So, only just… Obviously, for my diagnosis I had that and then six months later, and I had a stem cell transplant and I did a BMB prior as well then, a couple of months after I did that again. So that was the only time and it happened more regularly, but since then it’s been like yearly. 

Lisa Hatfield:

Yeah Okay. Yeah, the bone marrow biopsy is interesting because I know a lot of… There’s different ways that they test that and now they have a more sensitive test, so everybody has different..That’s the other part of alphabet soup. Some people have something called flow cytometry or NGF or NGS. So anyway, yeah, it’s kind of interesting that everybody will have different ways of going through that or different experiences, so anybody who has questions, you’re welcome to reach out to me at PEN or any of the other resources that are out there.