Tag Archive for: leukemia

PODCAST: CLL Patient Expert Q&A: Dr. Danielle Brander

/in , , , /by

 

Download Resource Guide   |  Descargar Guía en Español

See More from START HERE CLL

Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:

Welcome to this START HERE, Patient Empowerment Network program. This program bridges the CLL expert and patient voices, enabling patients and care partners to feel comfortable asking questions of their healthcare team. Joining me is Dr. Danielle Brander, a CLL specialist serving as assistant professor in the Division of Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy at Duke University Medical Center. Dr. Brander directs the chronic lymphocytic leukemia or CLL and lymphoma program and serves as primary investigator for CLL focus clinical trials. Thank you so much for joining us, Dr. Brander.

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Thanks for having me, Lisa.

Lisa Hatfield:

The world can be complicated, but understanding your chronic lymphocytic leukemia diagnosis and treatment options doesn’t have to be. The goal of START HERE is to create actionable pathways for getting the most out of CLL treatment and survivorship. 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. So let’s get started. Dr. Brander, I’d like to talk about what’s on the CLL treatment radar. There’s a lot going on in terms of emerging treatment options, clinical trial data, and other learnings from the CLL community. Before we jump into a detailed discussion, can you provide an explanation of what CLL is?

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Absolutely. So CLL, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, we generally think of as blood cancer. But often as you hear the ending of that, the name leukemia, we also think of it as a lymphoma, meaning patients can have the spectrum of an elevated white count like you might think of in terms of a leukemia. They can also, like a lymphoma though, have enlarged lymph nodes or spleen. And often patients are diagnosed incidentally and that just means that they’re…in seeing their physician or their medical team for other reasons. And they might have had a blood test, and their white counts elevated.

Or they might notice they have a tiny enlarged lymph node or found on screening for other cancers, for example. And so the takeaway there is that many patients don’t necessarily have symptoms and certainly often many patients don’t have reasons to need to start treatment at the time they’re diagnosed. So in terms of what it is today, I think more and more patients are being diagnosed both because it is something that comes about as patients get older, but also because it’s found during routine other visits. And so more and more patients I think are found incidentally that way.

Lisa Hatfield:

Okay, thank you. So just a follow-up question to that, if a patient goes into their primary care provider and finds something unusual that might indicate CLL, will they be referred to a hematologist right away at that point? Usually?

Dr. Danielle Brander:

So that is a great question. Often they are, for example, if they’re noted to have a high white count or, specifically a type of white cell called lymphocytes. However, there are many things that can cause that or cause a small lymph node. And so, some primary care appropriately, if those changes are small and they could be due to other things like an infection, for example, then their primary care might want to follow up first. And if things go away, it may not be related to a cancer at all.

But if it’s something that persists or it seems very out of range, or primary care, who, you know, are specialists and seeing kind of changes all the time, and may say this seems a little bit out of range, then even before something’s diagnosed, patients might be referred to a hematologist or an oncologist to help with that workup. But often because primary care is so astute in seeing these things, they may counsel patients to say, let’s send this test or this test to get things going while we’re speaking to a hematologist or oncologist.

Lisa Hatfield:

We have CLL patients and care partners who are newly diagnosed in active treatment, watch and wait, and also living well with their disease. Joining this program no matter where you are in your CLL journey, START HERE provides easy-to-understand, reliable, and digestible information to help you make informed decisions. So, Dr. Brander, we’re going to get into a more detailed discussion now of CLL. Can you talk a little bit about the novel pathways and targets that are currently under investigation in CLL, and what are the most important highlights from those for patients and their families and care partners?

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Yes. So over the last decade or even the last five years, for patients diagnosed with CLL, there’s been a very encouraging and marked change in the available treatments that is, you know, not that many years ago we generally only had chemotherapy or chemotherapy combined with these antibody targeted treatments that we call immunotherapy sometimes.

But in the last 5 to 10 years we’ve seen quite a remarkable change in treatments that target, meaning often they go after pathways or ways that the CLL cells have learned to grow or have learned to not die the way that normal cells should, die after certain time points. The two main categories of treatments that are approved for CLL treatment, either for patients as a first treatment or patients that have had treatment before including prior chemo or other agents are called BTK inhibitors or BCL-2 inhibitors.

BTK is something inside the leukemia cells. It’s also in some of our other cells. But in the CLL cells particularly, they’re very sensitive in needing that protein. So in targeting that BTK inhibitors keep the cells from getting the normal signals that they need to stay alive, and so the lymph nodes that are big get smaller, a spleen that might be big get smaller, white count eventually comes back down, for example. And those BTK inhibitors have also already encouragingly changed over recent years.

So there was…you’ll hear people say first generation, these were the first inhibitors that came out, that was a drug called ibrutinib (Imbruvica), which is still around. And then there are second generation that are approved that have come out as first treatment or treatment for previously patients that receive treatment.

Those second-generation BTK inhibitors are called zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) and acalabrutinib (Calquence) that are approved. The main other approved category of these targeted treatments I mentioned is venetoclax based treatment. And that targets something different, that targets a set of proteins inside the cell that tell the cell to stay alive too long. And so you have this accumulation and venetoclax targets that pathway. And the last thing I’ll mention about the BTK inhibitors that’s emerging is now there are trials of what are called non-covalent BTK inhibitors.

So they work in a different way, they go after BTK and so that they can work. The non-covalent, even for patients where the first and second-generation, traditional covalent BTK inhibitors I mentioned stop working, those are not yet approved officially for CLL, though they’re approved in mantle cell lymphoma. That’s a drug called pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca), that’s a non-covalent BTK. And the reason that emerging set of treatment, as I mentioned, is important is because it can work for patients where the first or second-generation covalent BTK inhibitors stop working. The venetoclax (Venclexta), as I mentioned, works by a different mechanism. So patients, of course, where the BTK stopped working, in many cases venetoclax can be helpful as well.

Lisa Hatfield:

Great. Thank you so much. So I read a little bit, I did a little research on trials that you’re involved in, and there is a trial the EVOLVE CLL trial, and I wonder if you can talk about that a little bit because I think it is exciting for patients to hear that there might be an option for earlier intervention. And I’m not sure if you’re allowed to talk about any results yet, but if you can speak to results, that would be great to hear about those results too.

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Well, yes and no, thank you for bringing this up because this is very important. As you mentioned, it’s called the EVOLVE study. It’s led by a national cooperative group called SWOG, meaning there are lots of places that it’s available, not just larger centers, but smaller oncology centers as well. And this is to look at what’s called early intervention, meaning as we spoke about before, most patients with CLL don’t need treatment at the time that they’re diagnosed. The reasons for treatment are, we call those treatment indications are based on three main categories that I’ll just review. For some patients, it’s new or progressive symptoms like weight loss or, very symptomatic limiting life day-to-day activities like night sweats or fatigue, for example, that’s the first category of reasons some patients might need treatment is unmanageable side effects.

The second main category is if the lymph nodes get very large or impacting on organ function, or the same for the spleen, it’s getting very large to a certain size, or it’s affecting your ability to eat regular meals or losing weight. And then the last category of treatment indications that we generally wait to start treatment for are if it’s affecting the normal blood count.

So there’s not one magic white count where patients need to start treatment, but almost like weeds in a garden, if those CLL cells are crowding out the red blood cells, so the hemoglobin’s falling or it’s crowding out the platelets, so the platelets are crowding and can’t grow and reach a certain threshold, then we recommend treatment. Of course, there are scattered other reasons, but those are the main three categories. And the reason of waiting to start until those are met is because historically trials have been done to look at waiting for those indications versus treating around the time of diagnosis.

Those trials so far have included chemotherapy by itself or chemotherapy in combination. And most recently there was a trial looking at first-generation ibrutinib that was given continuously. And so far there’s been no survival. So no life expectancy benefit to early treatment versus waiting for those indications. And the other reason generally not treating all patients is because some patients never require treatment, about a quarter of patients. So if we offer treatment to everybody, at the time of diagnosis, there are patients that would get treatment that would be exposed to side effects and never needed. But what the EVOLVE study is uniquely looking at is randomizing. And randomizing means some patients will get treatment and some patients will wait until those traditional reasons to need treatment. But for those randomized to receive therapy, it’s that venetoclax based treatment combined with this antibody called obinutuzumab (Gazyva).

And the way that treatment is given for patients, is the same way it’s given for patients who outside of the trial need treatment, meaning they get the antibody infusion, then they get the venetoclax pill, but it’s for a fixed duration, meaning a total of one year of treatment. The trial is also only for patients with higher-risk CLL. So as I mentioned, some patients never need treatment, some patients do, some patients need it quicker. So rather than looking at this trial and saying all patients, including those with CLL, that’s likely to be slower-growing. The EVOLVE trial is only for patients who are more likely to need treatment in the next couple of years.  And the way that’s determined is a score called the CLL-IPI score, and CLL-IPI tries to identify patients more likely to need treatment in the next couple of years by a couple of key factors.

Stage at the time of diagnosis, it looks at age, and it looks at key factors of the leukemia itself, including something called deletion 17P or TP53, because that marker in the cells is a high risk of eventually needing treatment.  So to answer your question, what EVOLVE is looking at is taking higher-risk patients, so patients rather than all patients more likely to need treatment anyway, and around the time of diagnosis, randomizing to either be treated or to follow the traditional, sometimes called watch and wait or dynamic monitoring until they reach traditional markers. And ultimately, and it’ll likely take many years to look at, ultimately the question is looking at if that helps prolong patient survival by having higher-risk patients receive that fixed-duration treatment earlier in time. We don’t yet have any results or any results to share, because the study is still enrolling.

But again, I think it’s something for patients to be aware of, because it does look at the higher risk patients. But around a year, it has to be within a year of diagnosis. So patients who are newly diagnosed, the question to ask your oncology team is “Do I qualify?” if it’s something you’re interested for, and they’ll help walk you through that. If you haven’t had markers checked, for example, it might be a good time to ask about that, to see if this is something would be available, even if not available though, it does create a time to talk to your team about the markers, because those can inform regardless of trial or not maybe what to expect in coming years and likelihood of treatment.

Lisa Hatfield:

Great, thank you for that. So as a cancer patient, one of the biggest questions I had when I was diagnosed, you hear the word “cancer” or in this case “CLL leukemia.”Two questions. One of them, is there a cure for CLL? And if not, are any of the…are there any trials looking at a cure for CLL?

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Yes. Excellent. An understandable question. Traditionally, we say that CLL or others slower-growing, or sometimes you’ll hear the term indolent lymphomas, do tend to be slower-growing.  Some patients don’t need treatment. But the flip side of that is we generally think of them as not curable, that they’re a chronic condition and that treatment, the goal of treatment is to knock it down and relieve whatever symptoms or indications or reasons you’re starting treatment are.

But at some level, we historically think of CLL as either eventually coming back or sticking around, so to speak. However, I think most oncologists, most those in the field, feel that some of the treatments that are around or in combination, that we’re going to have some patients that have maybe what a term might be functional cure or individual, cure-like condition.

Meaning if our newer treatments for some patients can knock down the CLL so much that it either doesn’t come back or take so long to even show itself again, in a way that serves as what the purpose of cure, really is, which is to get it down to levels that it’s not causing problems or not coming back, for the lifetime of the patient. Bone marrow transplant is the only therapy historically that has been cured, has offered a cure for some patients. The downside and the reason that most patients aren’t referred to for bone marrow transplant is the risk side of it. Meaning, unfortunately, a bone marrow or stem cell transplant has such a high risk of directly causing side effects.

That could be life-limiting or chronic side effects from the transplant itself versus the agents available now that we aren’t using or referring to bone marrow transplant nearly as much, but I think it’s really encouraging what we’re seeing in responses. So we talked already about those main categories of BTK inhibitors or venetoclax, I didn’t yet talk about, but there are many trials that have looked at those in combination, or CAR T, for example, or bispecific antibodies that are knocking down the CLL to such low levels. But the hope is that serves as a way of functional cure. But it’s going to take time to see if that’s the case. But we’re all very encouraged and really believe that that’s on the horizon.

Lisa Hatfield:

Great. Thank you so much. And even a functional cure sounds really hopeful, so I’m happy to hear that term. Thank you. And I want to be cognizant of your time and the time of everybody watching. So we are going to move into some of the questions that we’ve received from you watching this, patients. Remember, as patients, we should always feel empowered to ask our healthcare providers any and all questions we might have about our treatment and prognosis. Please remember, however, this program is not a substitute for medical care and always consult with your own medical team. So, Dr. Brander, let’s start here. How do you explain, you kind of covered this a little bit, CLL treatment options and prognosis to your newly diagnosed patients? And I think that the prognosis piece is really important, especially if they do start treatment. 

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Sure, absolutely. So, what are the things we’re looking for in terms of needing treatment?  Because some of those, especially the symptoms we’re noting a lymph node or spleen, for example, or symptoms of anemia, which is low red cells or bleeding from low platelets, it’s helpful for patients to understand what we’re looking for, but, of course, in the time between visits those are the things we want to help patients with if they notice.

And so we encourage them all the time to call our triage or send us, you know, most electronic medical records now, have ways to send your team a message. And we want to know about that from patients in between visits. In terms of prognosis, as I mentioned before, there are other CLL-specific labs usually on the blood, meaning a regular blood draw.

Most patients don’t need another lymph node biopsy or a bone marrow biopsy, though that happens in some cases. And two of those or some of those key markers I mentioned before, but they test in the leukemia, there’s one test called the FISH, F-I-S-H, it’s not specific to CLL, we use it in other cancers. But it’s to look for specific changes in the leukemia genomics, meaning the DNA, the genetic material of the leukemia, not genetics you’re born with, but the cancer itself.

And there are specific patterns and that can be helpful as I sit down with patients to say this isn’t 100 percent, but this is kind of what to expect and likelihood of needing treatment over the next couple of years. There’s another test called IGHV, another mutation test TP53 kind of beyond this to go over right now, but as you mentioned, I think it’s important to meet with your medical team and say, ‘How does this pertain to me specifically?”

In terms of prognosis, I think there’s two parts to that of understanding what to expect. There’s likelihood of needing treatment, there’s likelihood of time to treatment, and those kind of markers and staging system help in a good way. Right now, our historical expectations, meaning 5 or 10 years ago, we could often also sit with patients and say, “This is the prognosis in terms of survival.” Expected life expectancy on average, but in a good way, most of our systems nowadays with the newer treatments likely vastly underestimate patient survival, meaning those systems were designed when we only had chemotherapy treatments.

Now, we know patients even with the highest risk markers, the faster progressions are living, you know, years and years beyond what was expected with chemotherapy. So I just caution especially materials around from just a couple of years ago that likely they don’t pertain, but they can be helpful in knowing what to expect.

Lisa Hatfield:

Great, thank you for that. Answering that question. We have a couple of questions about BTK inhibitors, and you already talked a little bit about the role of those and why they’re significant in treating CLL. But another patient’s asking about the, of course, a lot of patients wonder, what are the side effects? They hear chemo and like, “Oh, my gosh, the side effects are going to be off.” Can you talk about the side effects and even maybe some unusual side effects that you’ve heard of from patients when using the BTK inhibitors?

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Sure, absolutely. And so again, really important, these are things that as we maybe anticipate patients are going to start treatment, this is a long discussion of deciding between treatment, for example, as first treatment. There’s no trial saying one path is necessarily better than the other. So we try to individualize choosing between BTK inhibitors or that venetoclax-based therapy I mentioned. Some of that though comes about and what expected side effects are expected side effects for the individual. I try for patients to hear it from myself, other members of the team, the nurse, our pharmacist, for example.

And so patients shouldn’t feel overwhelmed to keep asking about what to expect or new side effects. There are some side effects we talk about regardless of the treatment. So I’ll just point out, anytime you’re starting treatment, you’ll hear the team talk about risk for infection, monitoring for fevers, reaching out to us about those kinds of side effects, lower blood counts that can happen regardless, not specific to BTK though it can happen there as well.

There’s some specifically though with BTK inhibitors, we ask patients to watch out for. Some BTK inhibitors can cause some cardiovascular side effects, meaning watching out for funny beating of the heart or what we call palpitations, skipped beats. There can be arrhythmias, some patients can have with time elevation in their blood pressure, for example. And then risk for bleeding, meaning BTK inhibitors affect how the platelets stick together similar to what aspirin does.

So the platelet levels may be normal but patients might have easier bruising, just generally manageable. But if there’s any kind of bleeding, certainly the team should be aware. It’s also the reason though, if you’re on a BTK inhibitor and you have a planned surgery or procedure, let your team know, because we may recommend or a lot of times recommend holding the medication before and after certain surgeries or procedures.

Other side effects can be muscle or joint aches. Some patients have some gastrointestinal side effects like looser stools or sensitivities to certain food causing looser stools, for example. And then there are some that are specific to the individual BTK inhibitor. This is the one point I’ll mention that first-generation BTK inhibitor ibrutinib, part of the reason for the second-generation zanubrutinib and acalabrutinib is not necessarily of them working better but to have less of these side effects that I just mentioned.

Lisa Hatfield:

Great, thank you for that. So this patient is telling us that he’s trying to plan life while living with cancer. It’s a challenge. It’s hard to know where to start. Can some patients go off of ibrutinib? I don’t say…ibrutinib after five years and enter a watch-and-wait kind of program. And will they be monitored during that time too, if they ever do go off of the medication?

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Yeah. So again, more excellent, excellent questions. So of those main categories of treatment, the BTK inhibitors are given continuously, meaning, at least so far, the standard way we recommend of those treatments is that they’re taken every day, either once or twice a day, depending on which BTK inhibitor, and they’re taken every day. Unless patients run into progression, meaning the CLL learns to grow through its resistance or patients run into side effects that despite maybe team’s recommendation of changing the dose or holding the medications, that it’s just the medication is just not tolerated.

In those cases, there are cases where we do recommend stopping the treatment because of side effects. And the key there is that patients if depending how long they’ve been on treatment or how their CLL is responding, might not need to go on to the next treatment right away.

So to answer this patient’s question, if they were to run into a side effect that wasn’t manageable, there are patients where we say, stop treatment and let’s just watch things, see if you need treatment, if your CLL has no other reason to jump into the next therapy. And there have been encouraging things that we’re learning and that I think are hopeful to this patient’s question, which is maybe in the future there are patients where we proactively can tell them to stop after a certain time because of what we’ve learned for patients so far. But at the current moment in time, we don’t tell patients to stop at a certain amount of time.

But there are trials that are looking at that after a certain number of years. And there are also trials that have followed patients who have stopped therapy and some of those patients, as I mentioned, who are told to stop treatment due to other side effects or other reasons, may go a long time, a couple of years before they need to start therapy.

Lisa Hatfield:

Okay, great. Thank you. I’m going to add one little question there too, if you don’t mind. So we’ve talked about trials a little bit, and I know that patients can go to clinicaltrials.gov, but what if a patient lives in an area that doesn’t have a major academic center or maybe trials aren’t being done very much in their area? Do you have a recommendation for patients? Should they just ask their doctor about trials if say, for example, they want to go on one of these trials? What recommendations do you have for those patients?

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Yes, absolutely. Starting with your healthcare team is very helpful to navigate to the right site. You mentioned the SWOG trial, which is online at a lot of the community and academic sites. So I would say also don’t or I encourage patients that just if they’re at a smaller site, it doesn’t mean there aren’t trials available. And then without going into all the individual, I guess societies and advocacy networks I really think that that’s been a tremendous benefit for patients is that there are societies through, you know, having leukemia or lymphoma, for example, that list or want to help patients connect them to what available trials there are.

Because while we think of trials as maybe the treatment, the reality is that a lot of trials are looking at other things too, patient’s physical function, patient’s other aspects of life besides the drug itself. So yes, I think that’s a great question for patients to be thinking about.

Lisa Hatfield:

Great, thank you. And you’re right, talking about access to trials is a whole other issue that will probably take up an entire program. But there are the advocacy networks out there, even Patient Empowerment Network. We can maybe help with that a little bit too. So we have another patient who is concerned about chances of relapse and is asking if there are any lifestyle changes through diet and supplements or anything that you can speak to that may enhance their response or their duration response to the treatment?

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Yeah. So a very very great question to bring about. And this is the one area, understandably where many of us feel frustrated because we can’t tell patients specifically that this trial has been done and says this specific diet is helpful or this specific lifestyle change is helpful to make the treatment work for longer. I think some of that is because some of the general advice we give meaning maintaining daily activity or a well-balanced diet sound non-specific or simple, but I think do help in patients staying in an overall general health wellness so that they can benefit from the treatment and potentially have less side effects from the therapy.

But getting back to the question we just talked about, I think certainly trials or studies really need to be continuing to look at this, because I think there likely are things that we can be more specific to patients about. There are studies looking at physical fitness and exercise regimens not necessarily specific to CLL, although there are studies being done in that space, but to other cancers showing that physical activity and exercise can help even for patients not on treatment maintain control of their cancer. So general daily activity and exercise are important in studies that look at how do you tailor that to an individual I think are important too?

Lisa Hatfield:

All right. So probably time for this last question from a patient. “As a CLL expert, how do you help empower your patients so they can get the most out of their CLL treatment and survivorship? How do you work with them as a team to make sure, I guess they’re having the best outcome they can?”

Dr. Danielle Brander:

Absolutely. So it starts at the start. I guess so for conversations, meaning for those that don’t need treatment right away building the relationship, understanding how I can help patients and their caregivers help, for example, they like to learn how much they want to know, what resources can I connect them with. And then I think it’s important for them to have other team members that they can go to and talk to and hear it from, because sometimes the same information we can just share in different ways or approach differently. The nurse on our team or our pharmacist or I work with a wonderful group of nurse practitioners and physician assistants as well. And so from the beginning, I want patients to feel free to ask the questions that come to mind.

It’s amazing, of course, during the course of the visit when you’re going over your labs and that, that sometimes it’s easy to forget the questions you came in with. So, of course, anytime you can write them down before coming in, write them down and then maybe prioritize because all of us…I think it’s hard to remember everything. So prioritizing the questions we want to make sure we get to and go over as well as know that these same questions are going to mean different things to you the longer you’re living with your CLL. And so it’s okay to ask the same questions. Again, there’s never a question that any of us mind going over several times. And then just know how the team can help you. You know, are you coming? How much information do you want?

How much input do you want us to put? And what is your importance and priority? At the end of the day, I want all patients to know no one knows what it is, like living with it. No one knows what’s most important as much as you and your family or your caregiver team does. And I learn just as much from patients and the way they share their experiences. There’s a lot we can look at a group of patients with CLL and say how different each patient’s experiences, who needs treatment or not, who has side effects or not. But no one’s going to know as much as as you do living with it. And it’s our hope to help you wherever you are in your journey or whatever ways that we can help you.

Lisa Hatfield:  

Well, and I appreciate your comment that we can ask the same questions over and over if we need to. I know my oncologist when I first met with him, I felt guilty taking in more than two questions, but right before he moved, I took in a long, I rolled up a piece of paper, a long scroll, and I said, I have some questions for you, but I knew they were all repeat questions. But it does give us a little bit of peace of mind just hearing it again from somebody, especially in those initial phases of treatment, just hearing it, even if you have to hear it again and again. So thank you for mentioning that. It makes us feel a little more confident in taking those concerns to our providers, even if they’re repeated concerns. 

Lisa Hatfield:

Dr. Brander, thank you so much for being part of this Patient Empowerment Network START HERE Program. It’s these conversations that help patients truly empower themselves along their treatment journey. And on behalf of patients like myself and those watching, thank you very much for joining us.

Dr. Danielle Brander:  

Thank you for having me.

Lisa Hatfield:  

I’m Lisa Hatfield, thank you for joining this Patient Empowerment Network program. 

Understanding AML Treatment Categories

/in , , , , , , , /by
 

Understanding AML Treatment Categories from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What are the available classes of therapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML)? Dr. Jacqueline Garcia reviews AML treatment options, ranging from chemotherapy and stem cell transplant to supportive care. 

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia is an oncologist and AML researcher at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Learn more about Dr. Garcia.

See More from Thrive AML

Related Resources:

New and Emerging AML Therapies Being Studied in Clinical Trials

New and Emerging AML Therapies Being Studied in Clinical Trials

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

In your experience, what does it mean to thrive with AML?   

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

I think that’s a really great question, and I’m glad you’re asking me now as opposed to a decade ago. In the last several years, we’ve had a tremendous number of drugs that got FDA-approved and a lot of exciting clinical trials that have not only shown efficacy and safety but really some long-term responses. So, we can now focus on not just finding what drug can work, which used to be our problem 10 years ago, since we had very limited therapeutic tools, meaning treatments. We now have several treatments available.  

So, when I think of what it means to thrive, it’s identifying the right treatment for each individual patient with acute myeloid leukemia, because what might be recommended for one patient may not be the right for another. And there are many different patient- and disease-related factors that go into that decision-making.  

Katherine Banwell:

Can you walk us through the classes of treatment that are considered when choosing an AML treatment approach?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yeah. In terms of the different classes of treatments, I would say we think of probably three broad categories. One would be – sorry, four broad categories. One would be intensive chemotherapy. And that involves generally hospitalization. Another would be less intensive therapy. That could involve a mixture of inpatient or outpatient therapy. That could also include targeted therapy. The third would be clinical trials, which can include any of the former options I recommended, but they would be in an experimental study. And the fourth would be focusing solely on supportive care or hospice for patients that are too sick to receive therapy.  

Other aspects that are specific, such as pills, versus IV, versus role of transplant, I don’t see it as being separate. You don’t go right to transplant when you have a diagnosis of AML. You have to be in remission. So, transplant, for instance, would come after an intensive therapy or after the less intensive chemotherapy. So, I see that as being the second step once I choose the right treatment option for the patient.  

Katherine Banwell:

And when you’re talking about transplant, you’re talking about stem cell transplant, right?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yes. Stem cell transplant, bone marrow transplant – they mean the same thing. We recruit stem cells from donors that are related or unrelated, and we mobilize them from bone marrow to blood. And so, we can collect stem cells either from blood or bone marrow at this point. So, that’s exactly right.  

Katherine Banwell:

And what about targeted therapy?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

We have targeted therapy available that’s IV or pill form. And so, any one of these options can be considered. But everything is very patient-specific, and I am very happy to tell you some of the categories and nuances of things that I look at, because I don’t usually just offer patients a menu.  

I tell them what’s appropriate based on their patient characteristics, meaning what their liver function is, their heart function, their history, medical history, what their labs show. And then, I look at their disease history. We are now in an era where we have options. So, I look to see are there mutations that are targetable. Are there not? Are there markers on the surface of their leukemia cells that suggest that there’s a target for an immunotherapy?  

So, we don’t offer classes per se without it being specific. So, I always look to see what are the patient disease-specific characteristics, and then I start the conversation about what the potential options could be and then what I think the best option would be for that particular case.  

PODCAST: Thriving With AML | Tips and Support for Navigating Treatment

/in , , , , , , , /by

 

How can you navigate care and thrive with acute myeloid leukemia (AML)? In this webinar, Dr. Jacqueline Garcia, an AML specialist and researcher, discusses the treatment and management of AML. Dr. Garcia will review factors that impact therapy choices and shares advice and resources for people living with AML.
 
Dr. Jacqueline Garcia is an oncologist and AML researcher at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Learn more about Dr. Garcia.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Thrive AML

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

Hello, and welcome. I’m Katherine Banwell, your host for this webinar. Today’s program is about how to live and thrive with AML. We’re going to discuss how to live well with AML and why you should play an active role in your care. 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. Jacqueline Garcia. Dr. Garcia, welcome. Would you please introduce yourself?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yes. Hi. My name is Jacqueline Garcia. I’m an oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. I’m a clinical translational investigator. And what this means is I take care of patients with acute and chronic leukemias. I focus mainly on patients with acute myeloid leukemia. The investigator part means, in addition to seeing patients, I spend a lot of time writing, developing, and executing clinical trials in the AML space. We know that there have been so many wonderful therapies that we helped to move froward and bring to the field and so there is more work to be done. So, having active investigations is a key part of this role.  

Katherine Banwell:

Excellent. Well, thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to join us today. We really appreciate it. We start all of our webinars in our Thrive Series with the same question. In your experience, what does it mean to thrive with AML?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

I think that’s a really great question and I’m glad you’re asking me now as opposed to a decade ago. In the last several years, we’ve had a tremendous number of drugs that got FDA-approved and a lot of exciting clinical trials that have not only shown efficacy and safety but really some long-term responses. So, we can now focus on not just finding what drug can work, which used to be our problem 10 years ago, since we had very limited therapeutic tools, meaning treatments. We now have several treatments available.  

So, when I think of what it means to thrive, it’s identifying the right treatment for each individual patient with acute myeloid leukemia, because what might be recommended for one patient may not be the right for another. And there are many different patient- and disease-related factors that go into that decision-making.  

Katherine Banwell:

Thank you for that, Dr. Garcia. It helps guide us as we move into our conversation. Typically, there are a number of team members to care for a patient. Who is part of an AML healthcare team?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Absolutely. We definitely cannot work on our own. Our team is very large, and it’s because these patients require a lot of support. At a bare minimum, a healthcare team will include at least one physician or an oncologist. The AML healthcare team might also include a second oncologist – that could be a bone marrow transplant doctor.  

Other members that are very critical include having a mid-leveler available that’s a physician assistant or a nurse practitioner. Often, an oncologist who runs a busy practice, who takes care of patients that could be very sick, like AML, they work in partnership with often very talented physician assistants and nurse practitioners. I know I do.  

In addition to that, I’m at an academic center so I’m super fortunate. I have really amazing and very smart hematology oncology fellows and residents that also follow to learn how to take care of patients. But we also, in the background, that patients don’t see – we have a pharmacist that helps us with making sure that drugs are prescribed correctly. They often call the patients with oral therapies to follow up. We have financial resource teams to help patients, to link them to LLS for support for bills that might come up, or transportation, or linking them up to other services that could help to defray or reduce costs.  

So, the healthcare team is quite extensive. But in terms of those that are patient-facing, it’s primarily the MDM that are mid-leveler. Some teams operate also with a nurse or a nurse care coordinator. That’s pretty common, too. And that person helps to not only schedule but also to answer pages or phone calls from patients if the medical team is not doing that.  

Katherine Banwell: What about a social worker or psychologist?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Oh. Yes. Yes. So, absolutely. So, every patient can be offered, if needed, access to an inpatient or outpatient social worker. Often, if my patients are admitted we have them see a social worker because that’s fairly seamless. Otherwise, for outpatient, if we identify any particular needs or there’s an interest, we’ll link them up with a social worker. This is the same that goes for physical therapy, or nutritionists, or those other ancillary services that can be really critical when patients are getting started.  

Katherine Banwell:

Yeah. Of course, getting appropriate care and treatment is essential to thriving. Can you walk us through the classes of treatment that are considered when choosing an AML treatment approach?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yeah. In terms of the different classes of treatments, I would say we think of probably three broad categories. One would be – sorry, four broad categories. One would be intensive chemotherapy. And that involves generally hospitalization. Another would be less intensive therapy. That could involve a mixture of inpatient or outpatient therapy. That could also include targeted therapy. The third would be clinical trials, which can include any of the former options I recommended, but they would be in an experimental study. And the fourth would be focusing solely on supportive care or hospice for patients that are too sick to receive therapy.  

Other aspects that are specific, such as pills, versus IV, versus role of transplant, I don’t see it as being separate. You don’t go right to transplant when you have a diagnosis of AML. You have to be in remission. So, transplant, for instance, would come after an intensive therapy or after the less intensive chemotherapy. So, I see that as being the second step once I choose the right treatment option for the patient.  

Katherine Banwell:

And when you’re talking about transplant, you’re talking about stem cell transplant, right?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yes. Stem cell transplant, bone marrow transplant – they mean the same thing. We recruit stem cells from donors that are related or unrelated, and we mobilize them from bone marrow to blood. And so, we can collect stem cells either from blood or bone marrow at this point. So, that’s exactly right.  

Katherine Banwell:

And what about targeted therapy?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

We have targeted therapy available that’s IV or pill form. And so, any one of these options can be considered. But everything is very patient-specific, and I am very happy to tell you some of the categories and nuances of things that I look at, because I don’t usually just offer patients a menu.  

I tell them what’s appropriate based on their patient characteristics, meaning what their liver function is, their heart function, their history, medical history, what their labs show. And then, I look at their disease history. We are now in an era where we have options. So, I look to see are there mutations that are targetable. Are there not? Are there markers on the surface of their leukemia cells that suggest that there’s a target for an immunotherapy?  

So, we don’t offer classes per se without it being specific. So, I always look to see what are the patient disease-specific characteristics, and then I start the conversation about what the potential options could be and then what I think the best option would be for that particular case.  

Katherine Banwell:

As a researcher, Dr. Garcia, you’re on the frontlines of AML treatment. Are there new and emerging therapies that patients should be aware of?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yeah. I think we’re at this really exciting point now where we had for a long time just been giving people standard two agent intensive chemotherapy. We have been studying in Phase II and Phase III settings, and even in Phase I – which means testing safety out for the first time. We’ve been moving a lot of treatments to more mature settings where we’re testing the addition of a third drug. So, for people that are getting intensive chemo, we’re looking at, “Can we add a pill to augment responses deep in them to reduce risk of disease returning?”  

For less intensive chemotherapies, one of the most common regimens we now use is something called azacitidine (Vidaza), which is a hypomethylating agent that is given by IV or subcutaneous administration. Plus, a pill called venetoclax (Venclexta).   

We helped to get that FDA-approved a couple of years ago. That combination of therapy, we call that a doublet, meaning it’s two drugs – because it’s so well-tolerated and active, we’re now asking the greedy question of, “Well, can we make it more active for patients since we’re seeing how well-tolerated it is?”  

So, there have been a lot of therapies that are currently under investigation that are adding a third drug to these less-intensive doublets. So, there’s a lot of therapies under investigation to test, “Can we add an immunotherapy target? Is there another pill that we can add? Is there another targeting mutation to add to the doublet?” So, we’re looking at AML therapies from different angles. We’re looking at adding something to the existing new standard of care – those are these new, so-called, triplets.  

We’re looking at still the role of cellular therapy or CAR Ts targeting leukemia cells from an immunotherapy standpoint.  

That remains underdeveloped overall, and we have not succeeded as well, like our lymphoid colleagues in the lymphoma and acute lymphoblastic leukemia realm where there are drugs that are active and FDA-approved.  

So, we’re still trying to identify the right target. But those are some of the areas that are currently under study.  

Katherine Banwell:

You touched on this earlier, Dr. Garcia, but I’d like to get into a bit more detail. With all the treatment options available, how do you decide who gets what? Tell us what is considered when choosing treatment for a patient.   

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

When I – this is a complicated question, because it’s not like you follow any particular algorithm. But when I meet a patient, I make a decision on what’s important to the patient and what’s  their goal. If I know – I need to understand their overall health to get a sense of are there ongoing competing risk factors that are active and more likely to impede with response, ability to deliver chemo, ability to get to transplant, something that tells me that’s not a possibility, or is their age too advanced – meaning greater than 75 – where we know that some of the treatments are not safe to deliver in that setting?  

So, I take a look at a patient’s overall health and age to make a decision. I take a look at bone marrow biopsy and lab findings to understand the flavor of their leukemia, from chromosomes to mutations. And because I am familiar with the data to give me a sense of what’s safe, what’s tolerable, and importantly what types of diseases, or subtypes of AML, would respond to one therapy over another, that’s how I formulate a recommendation.   

And based on all of that, all together, I’ll talk to them about treating the AML in steps. The first step is getting them into a remission, which can be done regardless of therapy type. That means to get their bone marrow under control, blood counts to recover. The second step, which is a more involved conversation that I often give a little bit of a hint of, but I go into greater detail over time, because we will see each other quite a lot, whether in the hospital or in clinic, is how to keep them in remission.   

And that’s where details about things like transplant come into play. I do my best to not overwhelm them, because when a patient hears the word transplant – and that’s often what they hear from family and friends because that’s what you can Google – they don’t know that there are many things, or many weeks of therapy, that have to happen in advance of transplant even being considered or happening. And transplant can’t even happen until someone’s in remission.  

But that is always on the forefront of a leukemia doctor’s mind, “Can I bring this patient to a transplantation? How successful will I be and what else do I need to give them to get them there sooner, safer, with a deeper response?” So, that way transplant could be successful. Transplant, by the way, is when we give a patient someone else’s stem cells that match their HLA typing, or their white blood cell signature.  

And it helps us to use someone else’s immune system to completely irradicate any microscopic leftover leukemia in a patient. But that is only successful when patients have good disease control or remissions. And that is only also successful if we have a donor for the patient, both of which  require at least several weeks to a couple of months of therapy. But that process is always initiated and ongoing in the background. And so, we often do this in piecemeal, because getting a diagnosis is already overwhelming. Learning about treatment is overwhelming.  

Learning about the frequency of labs, transfusions, being hospitalized, and then details about what a transplant would entail can be also overwhelming. But a lot of family and friends like to ask, because they feel like that is one way they might be able to help a patient. So, I know that they often eagerly ask the patient, “Well, what about this? How can I help?”  

Katherine Banwell:

Right. I can imagine that patient preference is also considered. But what kind of questions should patients ask about their treatment regimen?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

I always tell patients that I care very much about things like travel, hotels, all that jazz. But I always tell them let’s first talk about their health, what treatment I would recommend based on the available options and what their disease would mostly respond to, because I want it to be successful. And I always tell them let’s reserve questions on how it’s going to be done for last. I call that the logistics. I will never bring up or recommend something that could never be possible. But that being said, I try not to let the commute determine the decision.  

Whether or not there needs to be a hospitalization versus a hotel stay. I always consider then the background, but that financial decision should not drive the best treatment choice for a patient. Very fortunately, we’re in a country where patients have the ability – often, not always – to seek second opinions or to travel to academic centers.  

And because AML is an emergent or life-threatening disease, many insurance providers allow patients to come up to a big center to be treated, which I think is more than appropriate. So, we get into details of logistics last, because that’s the one thing that we can often overcome by providing additional resources and support. In terms of patient preference, if that’s what you mean with that, I would say I leave logistics to last, but we always consider and we do our best to accommodate.  

And that might be where we inform them we will look into getting a local partner to help us with additional therapies after the first month or upon discharge. So, it totally depends on the scenario for a patient, whether or not they have a local provider and a local hospital that could accommodate acute leukemia. I always tell patients ideally you don’t want to go to a place that only sees this once per year. You want to go to a place where everyone has seen it multiple times, including the nurses on the floors.  

So, that way, when there’s a complication, everyone knows what to do. We don’t want any “surprises” when it’s really just run-of-the-mill standard stuff for us every day. In terms of what patients desire, we always keep that in the conversation of their level of support. Can they swallow pills? Are they able to cope with being in and out of the hospital? All that stuff gets considered, but I think if they hear about the plan, about what’s required, when my expectation would be for a response, when the frequency of trips to a big city would decrease, how I could get a local partner to help with some of the lab or transfusion burden.  

Many of those preferences that they thought they had diminished, because they recognize that we found a way to make it work.  

Katherine Banwell:

Okay. Well, that’s really good to know. You touched on oral therapies a bit ago, and I know that they’re available for certain patients. Do you have any advice for patients who are in charge now of administering their own therapy?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yeah, I think that taking pills in general is hard for anybody, whether they’re naïve to pills. I definitely have patients that have never been on anything, and suddenly they’re on many medicines, to other people that are managing multiple medical conditions and this is yet another burden to add. I would say having an oral regimen is wonderful. It offers a lot of convenience. But we are all very thoughtful, and we all need to be proactive about looking for drug-drug interactions, because often there could be increases in the chemotherapy presence when another drug is on board.  

Sometimes, antibiotics are added on but they don’t realize it can add to side effects to chemotherapy. So, I would say number one is always make sure your oncology team is aware of the medications you are on or get recommended to add on in the midst of therapy, so we can make sure there are appropriate dosage estimates or if a particular drug should be avoided, then we can do that.  

I would say, too, having oral therapies is great, but there’s also financial toxicity that comes with it. Sometimes copays can get hefty. So, just because it’s oral, it’s not always convenient financially. Also, when things are oral it can add to more GI or mal gut toxicity. So, we’re always keeping in mind how many oral therapies, what drugs they are, so we don’t increase nausea and diarrhea, which can happen frequently when you’re requiring the GI tract to absorb the therapies that are necessary to eliminate the disease.  

So, all these things are under consideration. But to help people that are on oral therapies, it’s helpful to let your providers know if you’re noticing a pattern of nausea, so we can premedicate, have you take a nausea medicine before you take the chemo. You could also put a timer on your phone if you’re not used to taking medicines to serve as a reminder. You could create little calendars or check off on a paper calendar when you’ve taken a drug if you need help with reminding.  

So, there are little tricks like that. I always consider using a pillbox if you don’t have other pills to mix in and if you’re the only one touching it. I don’t want anybody to be exposed to therapies that they shouldn’t be otherwise.  

Katherine Banwell:

That’s good advice. Thank you. If a patient is feeling uncomfortable with the direction of their treatment plan or their care, should they consider a second opinion or even consulting a specialist?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Oh, 100 percent. I would say – I think that I’m spoiled. I’m a leukemia specialist, so they’re already seeing a specialist when a patient sees me. I don’t take care of any other cancers. But, I would say, for anyone seeing any oncologist in general, I would – number one, it doesn’t do the medical team any favors if you withhold any feelings of how the treatment’s going. Meaning, if you feel uncomfortable or that you’re having symptoms or people are taking too long to get back to you based on your experience.   

I would just make sure you do your best to at least let them know so that they have the ability to adjust or accommodate whatever need you might have that might be different than what they’re used to, because every patient’s different. Some people have a really great support system. Or they have a little bit of experience of being a patient. Different coping mechanisms. Everyone’s different. There’s no right or wrong. But I would just make sure that it’s clear with your existing team because they’re actively seeing you. Give them a chance to make the experience better.  

I would for sure seek a second opinion. Don’t delay – I will just put this disclaimer. I would not delay treatment for an AML if your current doctor is giving you a good plan and you feel confident that they have looked into whether or not you need to go to a bigger leukemia center and all that other stuff. But if you feel like they are giving you a good plan, don’t delay your therapy in the beginning, because you might get sick.  

If, however, there is demonstration of safety and time to see someone within a short timeframe for a second opinion at the time of diagnosis before treatment started, then that’s okay. But wouldn’t wait a few months to go looking around, because that could put your health at risk. Once you’re on treatment, seeking a second opinion, if you’re dissatisfied with your ongoing team, it’s fine. I always want patients to feel comfortable with their treatment plan.  

But I would recognize that you want to make it clear to your current team that they’re still helping you and responsible for your treatment. Because if you, for instance, started seeing multiple doctors and they won’t know who should be helping to follow up on certain things, who’s going to be scheduling the next round of therapy. And that ends up putting more ownership unnecessarily onto the patient where they might not have needed to have all that extra responsibility. So, I would just say just make sure that’s clear. Yeah.  

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Garcia, you mentioned earlier the fact that some therapies can cause a lot of side effects, like nausea. And certainly, speaking up and telling your healthcare team how you’re feeling and what some of the symptoms and side effects are, that’s really essential. What is the impetus for someone to consider changing treatment if something is just absolutely not agreeing with them?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

So, there are many reasons to change a treatment. One is a patient doesn’t tolerate it. It depends on what the issue is. Is it something that’s serious, like a liver or enzyme abnormality that is very abnormal, or a new cardiac problem where it would warrant a change or a dose reduction? That makes sense. There is definitely – often, there’s a lot of guidance in the package inserts or within a clinical trial and how to manage that. But if patient has some intolerabilities that could be overcome with standard supportive care methods, I would make sure we’ve done that.  

So, I would make sure you give you medical team the chance to fix any nausea. We have so many great antinausea drugs. I would want to make sure – or if constipation or diarrhea. It’s often a GI issue that patients get really bothered by.  

I would try to delineate whether or not the side effect was really from the chemo or is from the leukemia that is not yet under control. Or is it another medical condition or a drug-drug interaction that was missed. So, I would do my best to make sure there wasn’t something that was fixable or something else that should be addressed. We otherwise would recommend changing therapy for an extreme intolerability if there was another equivalent better option. And if someone’s disease does not respond to treatment, then we would consider another therapy, too.  

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Garcia, I want to make sure that we get to some of the audience questions that were sent to us prior to this program. Let’s start with this one.  

 Jerry had this question. “How long can patients stay on azacitidine and venetoclax before relapse or toxicities force them to abandon treatment?”  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

So, this is a good question. I would say azacitidine and venetoclax just got FDA-approved just shy of five years now, and it’s totally changed our treatment paradigm in many great ways. It was initially approved for patients that could not get intensive chemotherapies or were above 75. We call these our older patients, our more vulnerable.  

And we demonstrated and compared to azacitidine alone. It was given with placebo. We saw that the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax not only was safe, well-tolerated, it led to two-and-a-half times higher complete remission rates and impressively longer survival. That’s all we care about, patients are living longer. So, one of the things that we are appreciating in 2023 now, now that we have more patients on azacitidine and venetoclax, is that we have many patients that are long-term responders.  

So, in the original clinical trial we’ve been reported – and we just submitted the update for the long-term follow-up that we presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting in 2022, in December.  

We presented the long-term follow-up data that shows that responses can be durable and even as long as two years or three years in some patients. The average amount of time the patients are on therapy is somewhere between one-and-a-half to two years. But not every patient performs like an average patient.  

We have some that respond for less time. We have some that respond for a longer time. So, I definitely have a few patients that have been on combination therapy, and we’ve gone to year three, then four, and two that got to year five. And that was using the original indication of older the 75, no intensive chemotherapy. Most of those patients in the original trial and led to the approval were not transplant candidates. But once those drugs got approved, more patients that were older started getting this therapy.  

And so, the durability of this treatment might be longer for people that don’t have competing health problems and for specific mutation subtypes. There are a couple of mutation subtypes that include IDH2 and NPM1, where we’ve seen some extreme long-term responders.   

And then, there are others that are much shorter. So, I would say it’s very individual. In terms of toxicities in general, the regimens very well-tolerated. And if it’s not, often it’s because there should be supportive care, prophylaxis, and adjustments to the dosing strategy, which has been well-published. Sometimes, if you have a treating oncologist that is less familiar, they won’t know the nuances of how to adjust the doses, so I would ask your local oncologist to reach out to anybody that was part of the original trials. Often, a lot of us are very responsive to helping out our colleagues to help patients to stay on treatment.  

But at the end of the day, if a patient loses response or has a bad toxicity that makes it very difficult, we have to move on to another therapy.  

Katherine Banwell:

Of course. Carrie sent in this question. “What percent of patients relapse and what percent of patients relapse more than once?”  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Okay. So, this is a question that I can certainly answer, but I would say it depends on the context. So, if I was taking – any time a patient asks me that, I always ask them what they want to know and what they don’t want to hear, because sometimes hearing numbers can be really daunting to patients overall.  

So, a very large number of patients with leukemia can go on to relapse, which is why, if you’re on a treatment like azacitidine and venetoclax, we continue it every month as long as we can with dose reductions to help with tolerability.  

And that’s why, if you got that regimen or intensive chemo or another clinical trial and you get into remission, we ask the question of can we transplant this patient to do our best to cure them long-term to avoid and reduce the chance of a relapse. So, even with transplant, which remains our gold standard for long-term curability – it’s the only treatment we have that has a guaranteed track record of cure – not every patient that goes to transplant will remain in remission.  

If I were to be asked, “Well, how many relapse,” I would say it depends. I would say if I took the average patient, maybe 40 to 50 percent will relapse. But if you ask me for certain mutation types it could be 90 percent are cured or only 20 percent are cured. So, it’s very individual. It depends on age. It depends on mutations. It depends on the level of response they had before they go to transplant.  

So, I would say even though the word relapse is very scary or disease coming back is definitely a scary thing, there are a lot of people, including me, that are working on ways to reduce risk of relapse, improve how we transplant, improve the treatments around and after transplant, and improving frontline and relapse therapies.  

I think you had a second question of what happens if you relapse once and then what about if relapse happens again? I would say that getting into remission the first time is always the easiest. The way I always think about it is, you kill off all the bad cells that are the easiest to die the first time around with chemotherapy. Anything that’s left behind are often the resistant types. And so, getting into a second remission or responding the second time around with treatment is doable, but it’s much harder.  

So, I would say the majority of patients that relapse the first time will relapse the second time, unless we can successfully bridge them to a transplantation.  

Katherine Banwell:

Yeah. Dr. Garcia, as we close out this conversation, I wanted to get your thoughts on where we stand with progress in helping people live longer and thrive with AML. What would you like to leave the audience with?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

I think that this is – I feel very lucky with when I entered the field, that in this last decade, as I’ve developed – my time at Dana-Farber, for instance – I’ve seen that there have been so many drugs that we helped to get approved that are now in the hands of local oncologists and other academic oncologists, suggesting that the clinical trials are a gateway to improving treatments and offering new options.  

 We’ve gotten better at understanding what mutations and chromosomes means and personalizing medicines, and that has allowed us to develop smarter and better clinical trials, which we hope we will get to keep approving and making more available to patients. So, I think that this is a really good time for AML, meaning we have more than one option, that is for sure. We can now think about what the patient wants, what the patient, and what their patient disease has in order to make a decision. We weren’t able to do that before.  

So, we can really involve patients so they understand why we would recommend one option versus another. And we are still not done with investigation, even though many drugs got approved in the last five years. There’s a lot more progress to be made, especially in areas that we touched upon, from approving getting patients to transplant, reducing relapse risk, keeping people in remission. Those are all things that I’m personally working on in the clinical trial space and things a lot of my colleagues in the world are working on, too.  

It’s very important to all of us. So, I would say be hopeful that we are not done. There’s a lot of great options out there. We really can personalize. There are a lot of options out there, but everyone will get offered their best therapy and the first-line therapy is the most important. And I am very hopeful that we will keep getting better at prolonging remissions and durability of those responses.   

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Garcia, thank you so much for taking the time to join us today. It’s been a pleasure.  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Thank you.  

Katherine Banwell:

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 powerfulpatients.org. I’m Katherine Banwell. Thanks for being with us.   

Olutasidenib for Relapsed or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia with IDH1 Mutation

/in , , , , , /by

Introduction 

Once again a new drug that was recently FDA approved for some Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) patients. Olutasidenib (brand name: Rezlidhia) was approved in December 2022 for AML patients who have relapsed or are refractory to treatment (R/R) with a mutation in the Isocitrate Dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) gene. There is a different gene called IDH2, which can also be mutated in patients with AML, but different medications are used for IDH2 mutations. 

An existing drug, called ivosidenib (brand name: Tibsovo) was already approved for patients with AML and a mutation in IDH1. It was initially approved in July 2018 as a single agent for patients with R? AML with a IDH1 mutation. Later it was approved for use in combination with azacytidine for newly diagnosed AML patients with an IDH1 mutation. There was also a specific test (the Abbott RealTime IDH1 Assay) approved along with the initial approval of ivosidenib. This test was also approved to select patients to be treated with olutasicdenib.

Results of the Current Study 

The study used to support the approval was a non-randomized trial (all patients received olutasidenib). The study included patients with AML and ones with Myelodysplastic Syndrome (MDS) who had a mutation in the IDH1 gene. Patients were treated with olutasidenib as a single agent (monotherapy) as well as combined with azacytidine. The approval was based on the results of the 147 patients who received olutasidenib monotherapy (the results are described in detail here). 

In the study, about 35% of patients achieved a complete remission (CR) or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery (CRh) – the latter means that they appear to be in remission, but their blood counts are not normal. In addition, about one third of patients who were platelet and/or red blood transfusion dependent at the start of the trial eventually did not require transfusions for 8 or more consecutive weeks (transfusion independent). All patients experienced 1 or more adverse events (AEs) and almost all experience a serious (Grade III or IV) AE. These AEs are expected in patients with AML, particularly older patients, as most of the patients were. 

Comparison with Ivosidenib 

Now that there are 2 drugs approved for AML patients with an IDH1 mutation, the question becomes which drug should be used and in which circumstances. There have been no studies (at least ones that are published) that directly compare the drugs. According to the paper from Bload Advances on the responses to olutasidenib and ivosidenib as single agents was about the same, however the length of remission in the patients receiving olutasidenib (a median of 25.9 months) compared to ivosidenib (8.2 months0. The big caveat is that, since the comparison was not randomized, it is difficult to determine if there were differences in risks in each group. My guess is that there will not be a randomized comparison of these two groups.

It will be more interesting to look at these drugs in combination with azacytadine and also as a 3 drug combination of azacytidine and venetoclax. In addition, these drugs could be combined with existing intensive chemotherapy regimens (for instance, so-called 7+3 induction with cytarabine and daunorubicin). Likely the combinations would produce more remissions but might have significantly more side effects. 

In summary, the good news is that there is another drug that can help some patients with AML, the bad news is that the determination of the best therapy is yet more complicated. 

Further reading 

Olutasidenib: 

Ivosidenib: 

Thriving With AML | Tips and Support for Navigating Treatment

/in , , , , , , , /by
How can you navigate care and thrive with acute myeloid leukemia (AML)? In this webinar, Dr. Jacqueline Garcia, an AML specialist and researcher, discusses the treatment and management of AML. Dr. Garcia will review factors that impact therapy choices and shares advice and resources for people living with AML.
 
Dr. Jacqueline Garcia is an oncologist and AML researcher at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Learn more about Dr. Garcia.

Download Resource Guide

See More from Thrive AML

Related Resources:

How Can You Thrive With AML Advice for Navigating Care.

How Can You Thrive with AML? Advice for Navigating Care

 The Benefits of Being Pro-Active in Your AML Care

 What Are the Phases of AML Therapy

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

Hello, and welcome. I’m Katherine Banwell, your host for this webinar. Today’s program is about how to live and thrive with AML. We’re going to discuss how to live well with AML and why you should play an active role in your care. 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. Jacqueline Garcia. Dr. Garcia, welcome. Would you please introduce yourself?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yes. Hi. My name is Jacqueline Garcia. I’m an oncologist at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. I’m a clinical translational investigator. And what this means is I take care of patients with acute and chronic leukemias. I focus mainly on patients with acute myeloid leukemia. The investigator part means, in addition to seeing patients, I spend a lot of time writing, developing, and executing clinical trials in the AML space. We know that there have been so many wonderful therapies that we helped to move froward and bring to the field and so there is more work to be done. So, having active investigations is a key part of this role.  

Katherine Banwell:

Excellent. Well, thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to join us today. We really appreciate it. We start all of our webinars in our Thrive Series with the same question. In your experience, what does it mean to thrive with AML?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

I think that’s a really great question and I’m glad you’re asking me now as opposed to a decade ago. In the last several years, we’ve had a tremendous number of drugs that got FDA-approved and a lot of exciting clinical trials that have not only shown efficacy and safety but really some long-term responses. So, we can now focus on not just finding what drug can work, which used to be our problem 10 years ago, since we had very limited therapeutic tools, meaning treatments. We now have several treatments available.  

So, when I think of what it means to thrive, it’s identifying the right treatment for each individual patient with acute myeloid leukemia, because what might be recommended for one patient may not be the right for another. And there are many different patient- and disease-related factors that go into that decision-making.  

Katherine Banwell:

Thank you for that, Dr. Garcia. It helps guide us as we move into our conversation. Typically, there are a number of team members to care for a patient. Who is part of an AML healthcare team?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Absolutely. We definitely cannot work on our own. Our team is very large, and it’s because these patients require a lot of support. At a bare minimum, a healthcare team will include at least one physician or an oncologist. The AML healthcare team might also include a second oncologist – that could be a bone marrow transplant doctor.  

Other members that are very critical include having a mid-leveler available that’s a physician assistant or a nurse practitioner. Often, an oncologist who runs a busy practice, who takes care of patients that could be very sick, like AML, they work in partnership with often very talented physician assistants and nurse practitioners. I know I do.  

In addition to that, I’m at an academic center so I’m super fortunate. I have really amazing and very smart hematology oncology fellows and residents that also follow to learn how to take care of patients. But we also, in the background, that patients don’t see – we have a pharmacist that helps us with making sure that drugs are prescribed correctly. They often call the patients with oral therapies to follow up. We have financial resource teams to help patients, to link them to LLS for support for bills that might come up, or transportation, or linking them up to other services that could help to defray or reduce costs.  

So, the healthcare team is quite extensive. But in terms of those that are patient-facing, it’s primarily the MDM that are mid-leveler. Some teams operate also with a nurse or a nurse care coordinator. That’s pretty common, too. And that person helps to not only schedule but also to answer pages or phone calls from patients if the medical team is not doing that.  

Katherine Banwell: What about a social worker or psychologist?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Oh. Yes. Yes. So, absolutely. So, every patient can be offered, if needed, access to an inpatient or outpatient social worker. Often, if my patients are admitted we have them see a social worker because that’s fairly seamless. Otherwise, for outpatient, if we identify any particular needs or there’s an interest, we’ll link them up with a social worker. This is the same that goes for physical therapy, or nutritionists, or those other ancillary services that can be really critical when patients are getting started.  

Katherine Banwell:

Yeah. Of course, getting appropriate care and treatment is essential to thriving. Can you walk us through the classes of treatment that are considered when choosing an AML treatment approach?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yeah. In terms of the different classes of treatments, I would say we think of probably three broad categories. One would be – sorry, four broad categories. One would be intensive chemotherapy. And that involves generally hospitalization. Another would be less intensive therapy. That could involve a mixture of inpatient or outpatient therapy. That could also include targeted therapy. The third would be clinical trials, which can include any of the former options I recommended, but they would be in an experimental study. And the fourth would be focusing solely on supportive care or hospice for patients that are too sick to receive therapy.  

Other aspects that are specific, such as pills, versus IV, versus role of transplant, I don’t see it as being separate. You don’t go right to transplant when you have a diagnosis of AML. You have to be in remission. So, transplant, for instance, would come after an intensive therapy or after the less intensive chemotherapy. So, I see that as being the second step once I choose the right treatment option for the patient.  

Katherine Banwell:

And when you’re talking about transplant, you’re talking about stem cell transplant, right?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yes. Stem cell transplant, bone marrow transplant – they mean the same thing. We recruit stem cells from donors that are related or unrelated, and we mobilize them from bone marrow to blood. And so, we can collect stem cells either from blood or bone marrow at this point. So, that’s exactly right.  

Katherine Banwell:

And what about targeted therapy?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

We have targeted therapy available that’s IV or pill form. And so, any one of these options can be considered. But everything is very patient-specific, and I am very happy to tell you some of the categories and nuances of things that I look at, because I don’t usually just offer patients a menu.  

I tell them what’s appropriate based on their patient characteristics, meaning what their liver function is, their heart function, their history, medical history, what their labs show. And then, I look at their disease history. We are now in an era where we have options. So, I look to see are there mutations that are targetable. Are there not? Are there markers on the surface of their leukemia cells that suggest that there’s a target for an immunotherapy?  

So, we don’t offer classes per se without it being specific. So, I always look to see what are the patient disease-specific characteristics, and then I start the conversation about what the potential options could be and then what I think the best option would be for that particular case.  

Katherine Banwell:

As a researcher, Dr. Garcia, you’re on the frontlines of AML treatment. Are there new and emerging therapies that patients should be aware of?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yeah. I think we’re at this really exciting point now where we had for a long time just been giving people standard two agent intensive chemotherapy. We have been studying in Phase II and Phase III settings, and even in Phase I – which means testing safety out for the first time. We’ve been moving a lot of treatments to more mature settings where we’re testing the addition of a third drug. So, for people that are getting intensive chemo, we’re looking at, “Can we add a pill to augment responses deep in them to reduce risk of disease returning?”  

For less intensive chemotherapies, one of the most common regimens we now use is something called azacitidine (Vidaza), which is a hypomethylating agent that is given by IV or subcutaneous administration. Plus, a pill called venetoclax (Venclexta).   

We helped to get that FDA-approved a couple of years ago. That combination of therapy, we call that a doublet, meaning it’s two drugs – because it’s so well-tolerated and active, we’re now asking the greedy question of, “Well, can we make it more active for patients since we’re seeing how well-tolerated it is?”  

So, there have been a lot of therapies that are currently under investigation that are adding a third drug to these less-intensive doublets. So, there’s a lot of therapies under investigation to test, “Can we add an immunotherapy target? Is there another pill that we can add? Is there another targeting mutation to add to the doublet?” So, we’re looking at AML therapies from different angles. We’re looking at adding something to the existing new standard of care – those are these new, so-called, triplets.  

We’re looking at still the role of cellular therapy or CAR Ts targeting leukemia cells from an immunotherapy standpoint.  

That remains underdeveloped overall, and we have not succeeded as well, like our lymphoid colleagues in the lymphoma and acute lymphoblastic leukemia realm where there are drugs that are active and FDA-approved.  

So, we’re still trying to identify the right target. But those are some of the areas that are currently under study.  

Katherine Banwell:

You touched on this earlier, Dr. Garcia, but I’d like to get into a bit more detail. With all the treatment options available, how do you decide who gets what? Tell us what is considered when choosing treatment for a patient.   

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

When I – this is a complicated question, because it’s not like you follow any particular algorithm. But when I meet a patient, I make a decision on what’s important to the patient and what’s  their goal. If I know – I need to understand their overall health to get a sense of are there ongoing competing risk factors that are active and more likely to impede with response, ability to deliver chemo, ability to get to transplant, something that tells me that’s not a possibility, or is their age too advanced – meaning greater than 75 – where we know that some of the treatments are not safe to deliver in that setting?  

So, I take a look at a patient’s overall health and age to make a decision. I take a look at bone marrow biopsy and lab findings to understand the flavor of their leukemia, from chromosomes to mutations. And because I am familiar with the data to give me a sense of what’s safe, what’s tolerable, and importantly what types of diseases, or subtypes of AML, would respond to one therapy over another, that’s how I formulate a recommendation.   

And based on all of that, all together, I’ll talk to them about treating the AML in steps. The first step is getting them into a remission, which can be done regardless of therapy type. That means to get their bone marrow under control, blood counts to recover. The second step, which is a more involved conversation that I often give a little bit of a hint of, but I go into greater detail over time, because we will see each other quite a lot, whether in the hospital or in clinic, is how to keep them in remission.   

And that’s where details about things like transplant come into play. I do my best to not overwhelm them, because when a patient hears the word transplant – and that’s often what they hear from family and friends because that’s what you can Google – they don’t know that there are many things, or many weeks of therapy, that have to happen in advance of transplant even being considered or happening. And transplant can’t even happen until someone’s in remission.  

But that is always on the forefront of a leukemia doctor’s mind, “Can I bring this patient to a transplantation? How successful will I be and what else do I need to give them to get them there sooner, safer, with a deeper response?” So, that way transplant could be successful. Transplant, by the way, is when we give a patient someone else’s stem cells that match their HLA typing, or their white blood cell signature.  

And it helps us to use someone else’s immune system to completely irradicate any microscopic leftover leukemia in a patient. But that is only successful when patients have good disease control or remissions. And that is only also successful if we have a donor for the patient, both of which  require at least several weeks to a couple of months of therapy. But that process is always initiated and ongoing in the background. And so, we often do this in piecemeal, because getting a diagnosis is already overwhelming. Learning about treatment is overwhelming.  

Learning about the frequency of labs, transfusions, being hospitalized, and then details about what a transplant would entail can be also overwhelming. But a lot of family and friends like to ask, because they feel like that is one way they might be able to help a patient. So, I know that they often eagerly ask the patient, “Well, what about this? How can I help?”  

Katherine Banwell:

Right. I can imagine that patient preference is also considered. But what kind of questions should patients ask about their treatment regimen?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

I always tell patients that I care very much about things like travel, hotels, all that jazz. But I always tell them let’s first talk about their health, what treatment I would recommend based on the available options and what their disease would mostly respond to, because I want it to be successful. And I always tell them let’s reserve questions on how it’s going to be done for last. I call that the logistics. I will never bring up or recommend something that could never be possible. But that being said, I try not to let the commute determine the decision.  

Whether or not there needs to be a hospitalization versus a hotel stay. I always consider then the background, but that financial decision should not drive the best treatment choice for a patient. Very fortunately, we’re in a country where patients have the ability – often, not always – to seek second opinions or to travel to academic centers.  

And because AML is an emergent or life-threatening disease, many insurance providers allow patients to come up to a big center to be treated, which I think is more than appropriate. So, we get into details of logistics last, because that’s the one thing that we can often overcome by providing additional resources and support. In terms of patient preference, if that’s what you mean with that, I would say I leave logistics to last, but we always consider and we do our best to accommodate.  

And that might be where we inform them we will look into getting a local partner to help us with additional therapies after the first month or upon discharge. So, it totally depends on the scenario for a patient, whether or not they have a local provider and a local hospital that could accommodate acute leukemia. I always tell patients ideally you don’t want to go to a place that only sees this once per year. You want to go to a place where everyone has seen it multiple times, including the nurses on the floors.  

So, that way, when there’s a complication, everyone knows what to do. We don’t want any “surprises” when it’s really just run-of-the-mill standard stuff for us every day. In terms of what patients desire, we always keep that in the conversation of their level of support. Can they swallow pills? Are they able to cope with being in and out of the hospital? All that stuff gets considered, but I think if they hear about the plan, about what’s required, when my expectation would be for a response, when the frequency of trips to a big city would decrease, how I could get a local partner to help with some of the lab or transfusion burden.  

Many of those preferences that they thought they had diminished, because they recognize that we found a way to make it work.  

Katherine Banwell:

Okay. Well, that’s really good to know. You touched on oral therapies a bit ago, and I know that they’re available for certain patients. Do you have any advice for patients who are in charge now of administering their own therapy?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Yeah, I think that taking pills in general is hard for anybody, whether they’re naïve to pills. I definitely have patients that have never been on anything, and suddenly they’re on many medicines, to other people that are managing multiple medical conditions and this is yet another burden to add. I would say having an oral regimen is wonderful. It offers a lot of convenience. But we are all very thoughtful, and we all need to be proactive about looking for drug-drug interactions, because often there could be increases in the chemotherapy presence when another drug is on board.  

Sometimes, antibiotics are added on but they don’t realize it can add to side effects to chemotherapy. So, I would say number one is always make sure your oncology team is aware of the medications you are on or get recommended to add on in the midst of therapy, so we can make sure there are appropriate dosage estimates or if a particular drug should be avoided, then we can do that.  

I would say, too, having oral therapies is great, but there’s also financial toxicity that comes with it. Sometimes copays can get hefty. So, just because it’s oral, it’s not always convenient financially. Also, when things are oral it can add to more GI or mal gut toxicity. So, we’re always keeping in mind how many oral therapies, what drugs they are, so we don’t increase nausea and diarrhea, which can happen frequently when you’re requiring the GI tract to absorb the therapies that are necessary to eliminate the disease.  

So, all these things are under consideration. But to help people that are on oral therapies, it’s helpful to let your providers know if you’re noticing a pattern of nausea, so we can premedicate, have you take a nausea medicine before you take the chemo. You could also put a timer on your phone if you’re not used to taking medicines to serve as a reminder. You could create little calendars or check off on a paper calendar when you’ve taken a drug if you need help with reminding.  

So, there are little tricks like that. I always consider using a pillbox if you don’t have other pills to mix in and if you’re the only one touching it. I don’t want anybody to be exposed to therapies that they shouldn’t be otherwise.  

Katherine Banwell:

That’s good advice. Thank you. If a patient is feeling uncomfortable with the direction of their treatment plan or their care, should they consider a second opinion or even consulting a specialist?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Oh, 100 percent. I would say – I think that I’m spoiled. I’m a leukemia specialist, so they’re already seeing a specialist when a patient sees me. I don’t take care of any other cancers. But, I would say, for anyone seeing any oncologist in general, I would – number one, it doesn’t do the medical team any favors if you withhold any feelings of how the treatment’s going. Meaning, if you feel uncomfortable or that you’re having symptoms or people are taking too long to get back to you based on your experience.   

I would just make sure you do your best to at least let them know so that they have the ability to adjust or accommodate whatever need you might have that might be different than what they’re used to, because every patient’s different. Some people have a really great support system. Or they have a little bit of experience of being a patient. Different coping mechanisms. Everyone’s different. There’s no right or wrong. But I would just make sure that it’s clear with your existing team because they’re actively seeing you. Give them a chance to make the experience better.  

I would for sure seek a second opinion. Don’t delay – I will just put this disclaimer. I would not delay treatment for an AML if your current doctor is giving you a good plan and you feel confident that they have looked into whether or not you need to go to a bigger leukemia center and all that other stuff. But if you feel like they are giving you a good plan, don’t delay your therapy in the beginning, because you might get sick.  

If, however, there is demonstration of safety and time to see someone within a short timeframe for a second opinion at the time of diagnosis before treatment started, then that’s okay. But wouldn’t wait a few months to go looking around, because that could put your health at risk. Once you’re on treatment, seeking a second opinion, if you’re dissatisfied with your ongoing team, it’s fine. I always want patients to feel comfortable with their treatment plan.  

But I would recognize that you want to make it clear to your current team that they’re still helping you and responsible for your treatment. Because if you, for instance, started seeing multiple doctors and they won’t know who should be helping to follow up on certain things, who’s going to be scheduling the next round of therapy. And that ends up putting more ownership unnecessarily onto the patient where they might not have needed to have all that extra responsibility. So, I would just say just make sure that’s clear. Yeah.  

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Garcia, you mentioned earlier the fact that some therapies can cause a lot of side effects, like nausea. And certainly, speaking up and telling your healthcare team how you’re feeling and what some of the symptoms and side effects are, that’s really essential. What is the impetus for someone to consider changing treatment if something is just absolutely not agreeing with them?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

So, there are many reasons to change a treatment. One is a patient doesn’t tolerate it. It depends on what the issue is. Is it something that’s serious, like a liver or enzyme abnormality that is very abnormal, or a new cardiac problem where it would warrant a change or a dose reduction? That makes sense. There is definitely – often, there’s a lot of guidance in the package inserts or within a clinical trial and how to manage that. But if patient has some intolerabilities that could be overcome with standard supportive care methods, I would make sure we’ve done that.  

So, I would make sure you give you medical team the chance to fix any nausea. We have so many great antinausea drugs. I would want to make sure – or if constipation or diarrhea. It’s often a GI issue that patients get really bothered by.  

I would try to delineate whether or not the side effect was really from the chemo or is from the leukemia that is not yet under control. Or is it another medical condition or a drug-drug interaction that was missed. So, I would do my best to make sure there wasn’t something that was fixable or something else that should be addressed. We otherwise would recommend changing therapy for an extreme intolerability if there was another equivalent better option. And if someone’s disease does not respond to treatment, then we would consider another therapy, too.  

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Garcia, I want to make sure that we get to some of the audience questions that were sent to us prior to this program. Let’s start with this one.  

 Jerry had this question. “How long can patients stay on azacitidine and venetoclax before relapse or toxicities force them to abandon treatment?”  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

So, this is a good question. I would say azacitidine and venetoclax just got FDA-approved just shy of five years now, and it’s totally changed our treatment paradigm in many great ways. It was initially approved for patients that could not get intensive chemotherapies or were above 75. We call these our older patients, our more vulnerable.  

And we demonstrated and compared to azacitidine alone. It was given with placebo. We saw that the combination of azacitidine and venetoclax not only was safe, well-tolerated, it led to two-and-a-half times higher complete remission rates and impressively longer survival. That’s all we care about, patients are living longer. So, one of the things that we are appreciating in 2023 now, now that we have more patients on azacitidine and venetoclax, is that we have many patients that are long-term responders.  

So, in the original clinical trial we’ve been reported – and we just submitted the update for the long-term follow-up that we presented at the American Society of Hematology meeting in 2022, in December.  

We presented the long-term follow-up data that shows that responses can be durable and even as long as two years or three years in some patients. The average amount of time the patients are on therapy is somewhere between one-and-a-half to two years. But not every patient performs like an average patient.  

We have some that respond for less time. We have some that respond for a longer time. So, I definitely have a few patients that have been on combination therapy, and we’ve gone to year three, then four, and two that got to year five. And that was using the original indication of older the 75, no intensive chemotherapy. Most of those patients in the original trial and led to the approval were not transplant candidates. But once those drugs got approved, more patients that were older started getting this therapy.  

And so, the durability of this treatment might be longer for people that don’t have competing health problems and for specific mutation subtypes. There are a couple of mutation subtypes that include IDH2 and NPM1, where we’ve seen some extreme long-term responders.   

And then, there are others that are much shorter. So, I would say it’s very individual. In terms of toxicities in general, the regimens very well-tolerated. And if it’s not, often it’s because there should be supportive care, prophylaxis, and adjustments to the dosing strategy, which has been well-published. Sometimes, if you have a treating oncologist that is less familiar, they won’t know the nuances of how to adjust the doses, so I would ask your local oncologist to reach out to anybody that was part of the original trials. Often, a lot of us are very responsive to helping out our colleagues to help patients to stay on treatment.  

But at the end of the day, if a patient loses response or has a bad toxicity that makes it very difficult, we have to move on to another therapy.  

Katherine Banwell:

Of course. Carrie sent in this question. “What percent of patients relapse and what percent of patients relapse more than once?”  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Okay. So, this is a question that I can certainly answer, but I would say it depends on the context. So, if I was taking – any time a patient asks me that, I always ask them what they want to know and what they don’t want to hear, because sometimes hearing numbers can be really daunting to patients overall.  

So, a very large number of patients with leukemia can go on to relapse, which is why, if you’re on a treatment like azacitidine and venetoclax, we continue it every month as long as we can with dose reductions to help with tolerability.  

And that’s why, if you got that regimen or intensive chemo or another clinical trial and you get into remission, we ask the question of can we transplant this patient to do our best to cure them long-term to avoid and reduce the chance of a relapse. So, even with transplant, which remains our gold standard for long-term curability – it’s the only treatment we have that has a guaranteed track record of cure – not every patient that goes to transplant will remain in remission.  

If I were to be asked, “Well, how many relapse,” I would say it depends. I would say if I took the average patient, maybe 40 to 50 percent will relapse. But if you ask me for certain mutation types it could be 90 percent are cured or only 20 percent are cured. So, it’s very individual. It depends on age. It depends on mutations. It depends on the level of response they had before they go to transplant.  

So, I would say even though the word relapse is very scary or disease coming back is definitely a scary thing, there are a lot of people, including me, that are working on ways to reduce risk of relapse, improve how we transplant, improve the treatments around and after transplant, and improving frontline and relapse therapies.  

I think you had a second question of what happens if you relapse once and then what about if relapse happens again? I would say that getting into remission the first time is always the easiest. The way I always think about it is, you kill off all the bad cells that are the easiest to die the first time around with chemotherapy. Anything that’s left behind are often the resistant types. And so, getting into a second remission or responding the second time around with treatment is doable, but it’s much harder.  

So, I would say the majority of patients that relapse the first time will relapse the second time, unless we can successfully bridge them to a transplantation.  

Katherine Banwell:

Yeah. Dr. Garcia, as we close out this conversation, I wanted to get your thoughts on where we stand with progress in helping people live longer and thrive with AML. What would you like to leave the audience with?  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

I think that this is – I feel very lucky with when I entered the field, that in this last decade, as I’ve developed – my time at Dana-Farber, for instance – I’ve seen that there have been so many drugs that we helped to get approved that are now in the hands of local oncologists and other academic oncologists, suggesting that the clinical trials are a gateway to improving treatments and offering new options.  

 We’ve gotten better at understanding what mutations and chromosomes means and personalizing medicines, and that has allowed us to develop smarter and better clinical trials, which we hope we will get to keep approving and making more available to patients. So, I think that this is a really good time for AML, meaning we have more than one option, that is for sure. We can now think about what the patient wants, what the patient, and what their patient disease has in order to make a decision. We weren’t able to do that before.  

So, we can really involve patients so they understand why we would recommend one option versus another. And we are still not done with investigation, even though many drugs got approved in the last five years. There’s a lot more progress to be made, especially in areas that we touched upon, from approving getting patients to transplant, reducing relapse risk, keeping people in remission. Those are all things that I’m personally working on in the clinical trial space and things a lot of my colleagues in the world are working on, too.  

It’s very important to all of us. So, I would say be hopeful that we are not done. There’s a lot of great options out there. We really can personalize. There are a lot of options out there, but everyone will get offered their best therapy and the first-line therapy is the most important. And I am very hopeful that we will keep getting better at prolonging remissions and durability of those responses.   

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Garcia, thank you so much for taking the time to join us today. It’s been a pleasure.  

Dr. Jacqueline Garcia:

Thank you.  

Katherine Banwell:

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 powerfulpatients.org. I’m Katherine Banwell. Thanks for being with us.   

Thriving With AML | Tips and Support for Navigating Treatment Resource Guide

/in , , , , , , , /by

Download Guide

PEN-185_ThriveAML_0913

Download Guide

See More from Thrive AML

PODCAST: CLL Patient Expert Q&A: Start Here

/in , , , , , /by

 

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.

See More from the Empowered! Podcast

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. The issue was, it’s only a Phase II study, and the FDA generally requires larger Phase III studies for approval. It is an approved combination in Europe. There was a study done, a larger Phase III study done, but the FDA did not like its comparator arm.  So I honestly…I hate to say it, but I honestly don’t know if we’re going to see ultimately the approval in the United States of ibrutinib with venetoclax, because with most oncologists in the United States moving on to the second-generation BTK inhibitors, I think it’s more likely that we’re going to see money invested into clinical trials looking into combinations with acalabrutinib and venetoclax, and zanubrutinib and venetoclax, as opposed to investigating in larger scales ibrutinib-venetoclax.

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.

Are There Predictors That an MPN May Be Progressing?

/in , , , , , , , /by

Are There Predictors That an MPN May Be Progressing? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Many people living with MPNs are worried about progression. Dr. Raajit Rampal talks about possible indicators and discusses ongoing research to learn more about disease progression. 

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:

MPN Essential Testing | How Results Impact Care & Treatment Options

MPN Essential Testing | How Results Impact Care & Treatment Options

 Understanding MPN Treatment Options _ What’s Available for MF, PV, and ET

Understanding MPN Treatment Options | What’s Available for MF, PV, and ET?

 Understanding and Managing Common MPN Symptoms and Side Effects

Understanding and Managing Common MPN Symptoms and Side Effects

Transcript:

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. 

MPN Essential Testing | How Results Impact Care & Treatment Options

/in , , , , , , , /by

MPN Essential Testing | How Results Impact Care & Treatment Options from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How could molecular testing affect MPN treatment decisions? Dr. Raajit Rampal explains the purpose of this essential testing and how the results may impact prognosis and care. 

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:

Are There Predictors That an MPN May Be Progressing

Are There Predictors That an MPN May Be Progressing?

 Understanding MPN Treatment Options _ What’s Available for MF, PV, and ET

Understanding MPN Treatment Options | What’s Available for MF, PV, and ET?

 Understanding and Managing Common MPN Symptoms and Side Effects

Understanding and Managing Common MPN Symptoms and Side Effects

Transcript:

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:

Great 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 MPNs 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. 

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

Becoming an Empowered and [ACT]IVATED AML Patient

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

Patient Empowerment Network (PEN) is committed to helping educate and empower patients and care partners in the acute myeloid leukemia (AML) community. AML is shown to impact younger patients compared to other types of blood cancer. In addition, there are some marginalized communities of Black and Latinx AML patients that experience disparities in health outcomes. Recent studies in AML have shown higher mortality rates and higher rates of AML recurrence in Black and Latinx patient groups. PEN aims to help empower patients in their care. With this goal in mind, we kicked off the [ACT]IVATED AML program, which aims to inform, empower, and engage patients to stay abreast of the latest in AML care.

Disparities in AML Treatment and Health Outcomes

AML research studies show that Black and Latinx patients experience disparities in AML treatment and health outcomes. Some of the study findings include:

A recent study in Blood Advances showed that Black adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with AML have higher mortality rates and higher rates of AML recurrence in comparison to white patients. The study compared clinical outcomes between 1983 and 2016 for AYA patients between the ages of 18 and 29. The early mortality rate of Black AYA patients was 16 percent compared to 3 percent for white AYA patients. When examining complete AML remission rates, 66 percent of Black AYA patients experienced complete remission compared to 83 percent of white AYA patients. The authors of the study looked at the research data and determined that delayed diagnosis and treatment in the Black AYA patients as well as genetic differences of AML likely led to the higher mortality rate for this group. In comparison, Black and white patients between the ages of 30 and 39 showed no significant differences in their survival rates.

Lead study author Dr. Karilyn Larkin, a hematologist at the OSUCCC – James, shared, “To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine how molecular genetic alterations contribute to outcomes in young Black people with AML compared with their white counterparts.” Study of genetics is extremely vital in developing new and refined AML treatments, and this is why it’s more important than ever for more Black AYA patients to join clinical trials to create a larger pool of participants to learn from.

Another recent study in Blood showed that Hispanic/Latinx and Black AML patients have higher mortality rates in comparison to white AML patients. The study analyzed several factors in the disparities including health care access, tumor biology, treatment patterns, ICU admission during induction chemotherapy, comorbidities, and structural racism. Neighborhood measures of structural racism were found to be a major predictor of AML mortality rates. The neighborhood measures that were tracked in the study included census tract disadvantage, segregation, and affluence. The study authors concluded that more research must be done to learn the ways that structural racism relates with different AML treatment and predictive factors to impact health outcomes. Then more actions can be taken to help decrease the health disparities for these patient groups.

[ACT]IVATED AML Patient and Expert Tips

Black and Latinx patients who more frequently experience AML disparities are key groups for patient advocacy and empowerment. AML specialists, patients, and patient advocates have pooled some valuable advice through their experiences in treating and living with AML with the goal of improving care for all AML patients. PEN has been fortunate to receive some tips from patient and AML Empowerment Lead Sasha Tanori and AML specialists Dr. Catherine Lai and Dr. Naval Daver toward patient activation and empowerment.

Sasha talked about her AML experience as a Mexican American and the delay in her diagnosis. “You didn’t go out and seek care if you are hurt, you just sucked it up, you went to work, you went to school, you did your job, you took care of your family, and that was it. If you had any type of ailments or illness, you would just rub some Vaseline and do the sana sana and just move on about your day.”

Sasha’s care in a rural healthcare setting also contributed to the delay in her diagnosis. “In my local town they had no clue what was wrong, they didn’t know it was cancer, they didn’t know what was going on. They just kept doing tests after tests after tests, and they’re on blood work, and finally, they were just like, ‘We have no clue, we’ve got to send you somewhere else. You’ve got to get in an ambulance and leave.’”

Dr. Lai and Dr. Daver Tips

Dr. Lai advises patients to take proactive actions in their care. “Ask your physician and your oncologist when you’re talking with them about what all the newest therapies are and what would be specifically the best treatment for their specific leukemia with respect to the different mutations.”

Testing has become a key factor in optimizing treatment for each patient’s specific AML. Dr. Daver also stresses the importance of testing. “Patients, when they transformed what we call secondary AML or MDS, seemed to have a higher predilection for certain high-risk communications such as TP53, and these are best treated with ongoing frontline clinical trials at large academic centers.”

Dr. Daver also explained the importance of genetic mutations currently under study in combination clinical trials. “Patients should be checked for arrangements like MLL rearrangement NPM1 mutation, new fusions as these may be amenable to therapy with the menin inhibitors, there are multiple trials with five different menin inhibitors, single agent trials and also combination trials now ongoing across multiple centers both in the U.S. and ex-U.S.”

The future of AML care is full of hope, and Dr. Lai shared her perspective. “There are a lot of new, exciting therapies that are coming out, and that it’s really novel sequencing strategies and combinations that I think will be the future of AML.”

Clinical trial participation continues its vital role in improving AML care, and Dr. Daver took the opportunity to stress the importance of trials. “Clinical trials are critical, both for the patients themselves to get access to what we call tomorrow’s medicine today as well as potentially to help move the entire field forward.”

[ACT]IVATED AML Program Resources

The [ACT]IVATED AML program series takes a three-part approach to inform, empower, and engage both the overall AML community and AML patient groups who experience health disparities. The series includes the following resources:

  • [ACT]IVATED Expert Interviews with experts Dr. Catherine Lai and Dr. Naval Daver moderated by an AML patient
  • [ACT]IVATED Resource Guide  (en Espanol here)  a downloadable, printable support resource packed with a newly diagnosed patient checklist, expert tips, AML facts, AML mutations, cytogenetic abnormalities, and support resources
  • [ACT]IVATED Patient Vignettes to learn valuable experiences and lessons learned from other AML patients
  • [ACT]IVATED Activity Guide – a downloadable, printable support resource packed with information and activities to educate, empower, and support AML patients and care partners in their journeys through care

Though the underrepresented AML groups of Black and Latinx patients have experienced health and care disparities, experts and patient advocates are taking action to improve care for all. By shining the light on gaps in care, PEN aims to aid in reducing these gaps along with continued research advances and clinical trial participation. AML patients can educate and empower themselves to become more confident and active partners in their care. By doing so, they can make more informed decisions for improved health outcomes. We hope you can continue to use the [ACT]IVATED AML program resources to advance your path to becoming an informed, empowered, and engaged patient. 

Share Your Feedback About [ACT]IVATED AML

Top Two Reasons Why CLL Patients Should Participate in a Clinical Trial

/in , , , , , /by

Why exactly should a chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patient think about joining a clinical trial? In In the “Why Should CLL Patients Consider a Clinical Trial?” program, expert Dr. Adam Kittai from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – The James explains the motivation of clinical trials and the benefits CLL patients may receive from clinical trials. 

1. Improve Future CLL Treatments

Clinical trials examine the benefits of a specific treatment for a specific cancer and cancer stage. If you or your loved one participates in a clinical trial, there can be a double benefit to participation. The data gathered from clinical trials assists researchers in improving future CLL treatments for the patient who participates in addition to other CLL patients. Clinical trials can often have underrepresentation by BlPOC patient groups, and it is important for these groups to be represented in trials in order to develop the most refined treatments for all patient races, ethnicities, and genders.

2. Gain Access to Unavailable Therapies

In addition to improved treatments, clinical trial participation has other patient benefits as well. If you or a loved one participates in a clinical trial, the patient gains access to treatments or therapies that may not be accessible in another way. Clinical trials sometimes use different combinations of treatments that haven’t been used previously for a specific stage or type of cancer. Or clinical trials may offer access to a cutting-edge therapy that may ultimately be both more effective while also causing fewer side effects, which could result in a major win-win for patients.

By participating in CLL clinical trials, patients can help improve future CLL treatments for themselves as well as for others. If you have additional questions about clinical trials, ask your doctor or other healthcare provider. If they don’t have information about trials for your specific cancer and stage, they can check with specialists who would more familiarity. You can also find a database of clinical trials at clinicaltrials.gov.

What Are the Long-Term Effects of JAK Inhibitors?

/in , , , , , , , /by

What Are the Long-Term Effects of JAK Inhibitors? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

MPN expert Dr. Gabriela Hobbs discusses what researchers know about the long-term safety of JAK inhibitors and options for patients if the treatment loses effectiveness over time.

Dr. Gabriela Hobbs is a hematology-oncology physician specializing in the care of patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN), chronic myeloid leukemia, and leukemia. Dr. Hobbs serves as clinical director of the adult leukemia service at Massachusetts General Hospital. Learn more about Dr. Hobbs.

See More From MPN Clinical Trials 201

Related Programs:

Advances in Essential Thrombocythemia Research

Advances in Essential Thrombocythemia Research

 Advances in Myelofibrosis Research

Advances in Myelofibrosis Research

 Should All MPN Patients Undergo Molecular Testing

Should All MPN Patients Undergo Molecular Testing?

Transcript:

Katherine:

What are the long-term effects of JAK inhibitors? And what happens when JAK inhibitors are no longer effective? 

Dr. Hobbs:

Yeah. Great question. So, so far the patients that have been on JAK inhibitors for a long time don’t seem to have the development of additional toxicities that we didn’t know about.  

So, I’ll just comment on some of the things that we do know about. Weight gain is a common complaint that I have from patients, especially those that have polycythemia vera, because maybe they didn’t want to gain weight when they were put on a JAK inhibitor compared to the myelofibrosis patients who maybe had lost a lot of weight before being on a JAK inhibitor.  

There are certainly higher risk probably of developing infections with some of the JAK inhibitors. And we see, for example, shingles reactivation being a common one. And there’s the concern of development of skin cancers, which has been seen with some JAK inhibitors. But generally speaking, long-term use seems to be safe. That being said, ruxolitinib (Jakafi), which is the oldest one to be approved, has only been around since 2011, so we don’t have decades worth of experience to know.  

When JAK inhibitors stop working – to answer the second part of your question – until fairly recently we really didn’t have a whole lot to offer because there was only one JAK inhibitor. Now we have two others. We have fedratinib (Inrebic) and also pacritinib (Vonjo). And we know from the studies that have been done with both of these agents that some patients that lose response to Jakafi, meaning that their spleen starts to grow or their symptoms start to come back, can be treated with these other JAK inhibitors.  

And many patients will, again, have control of their spleen and symptoms. Now losing response to a JAK inhibitor can come in many different ways. And so, some patients may also develop signs of having leukemia or progression of their disease to leukemia. And, unfortunately, for those patients, being on another JAK inhibitor doesn’t make sense. So, those patients may need to receive other types of medications or a stem cell transplant. 

CLL Clinical Trials 201 Guide

/in , , , , , , , /by

Download Guide

PEN-162_Downloadable Guide_F

Download Guide

 

Thriving with CLL Resource Guide

/in , , , , , /by

Download Guide

PEN-161_Downloadable Guide_f

Download Guide

See More from Thrive CLL