Tag Archive for: TP53

CLL Expert Updates on Diagnostic Tool and Technology Advances

CLL Expert Updates on Diagnostic Tool and Technology Advances from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What diagnostic tool and technology advances for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) are available in clinic, and which ones are in the research setting? Experts Dr. Jennifer Brown from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Dr. Callie Coombs from the University of California, Irvine discuss next generation sequencing and research that is under study for CLL mutations.

Download Resource Guide  | Descargar guía de recursos

See More from EPEP CLL

Related Resources:

How Can CLL HCPs Gain More Understanding of Mutation Profiles

How Can CLL HCPs Gain More Understanding of Mutation Profiles?

CLL Clinical Trials for Molecularly Defined Patient Subgroups

CLL Clinical Trials for Molecularly Defined Patient Subgroups

CLL Expert Perspectives on Current and Future Patient Care

CLL Expert Perspectives on Current and Future Patient Care

Transcript:

Dr. Callie Coombs:

I think an argument could be made in practice whether or not sending these mutation tests is beneficial, but research, clearly important, and I think it’s going to give us key insights into our therapeutic sequencing strategies going forward. So I’m certainly a proponent of doing the testing in a well-monitored setting, but I don’t think it’s ready for prime time to be applied completely broadly to our patients.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you, Dr. Coombs, and I appreciate you adding that additional practical tips and information specifically for our healthcare providers. And you kind of moved into the next topic, which was really around new diagnostic tools and technologies that are available to detect and monitor mutations. So I’m going to go back to you, Dr. Brown, to see if you have any additional information that you’d like to share about new diagnostic tools, technologies with regard to these mutations and any other tips perhaps for our healthcare provider audience.

Dr. Jennifer Brown:

Well, and really the only issue is what Dr. Coombs mentioned that it’s very important to get a next generation sequencing test to evaluate the p53 mutation, that it really is not well-evaluated by any other test, and is often missed because it’s thought that checking for the deletion is sufficient. So I would just reemphasize that point that she made very clearly. Other than that, we don’t really need any additional tools to monitor for mutations.

In the research setting, we’re trying to do more and more sensitive assays to try and see when the earliest time that these mutations may emerge is and is there a way we could prevent that or, and just to better understand some of the biology, but it’s not really anything that’s needed in clinical practice. And we’re also not using the mutations to monitor residual disease. It turns out that the best way to do that is probably looking at the B-cell receptor itself, which is again, something that we’re studying in the research setting, but is not really something that needs to be done in clinical practices yet.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Wonderful. Thank you, Dr. Brown. We definitely want to leverage you all’s expertise in this area. And so my next question has to do with practices. And you’ve really kind of addressed this to some extent already. Are there any unforeseen or perhaps outdated practice-related barriers that may either hinder your work or that of your colleagues specifically related to better understanding CLL mutations?

Dr. Callie Coombs:

Yeah, I mean, I think in addition to what I mentioned about 17p and TP53, one type of mutation we haven’t talked about is assessing for the mutation status of IGHV.  So that’s actually something else that I’ve seen frequently missed as far as the routine testing of a CLL patient. But I do think it’s very important to send. Is it as important as when we were in the chemoimmunotherapy era where it would be hugely predictive for who had a long remission and who wouldn’t?

Maybe not as important, but I do think if someone’s unmutated that still can really help inform certain aspects of their journey. One is the time that between diagnosis and when he or she’ll need their first treatment. But two, also the expected length of remission should this patient embark upon a time-limited regimen such as venetoclax (Venclexta) and obinutuzumab (Gazyva).

But the separate question is, again, coming down to the practical aspect of how IGVH is tested. So another misunderstanding that I’ve seen is FISH tests look for the IGH locus. And so I’ve seen on recurrent occasions if that’s deleted, they say, “Oh, that’s a mutation.” Well that’s definitely not the same thing, and so it’s just to realize the IGHV test is a very specific test.

Some large facilities do it as an in-house test, I myself have been sending mine out to the Mayo Clinic, there’s other vendors where you can do it, but what they do is they specifically sequence IGHV and then compare the patient sequence to a consensus germline sequence to determine the percent of mutation, and it’s actually a good thing to be mutated with this gene, these are the patients that often have a longer time until they need their first treatment, if they need treatment at all, and then they generally have better responses to therapy. Though with BTK inhibitors, that difference is often becoming quite slim given that they work in both groups of patients.


Share Your Feedback

How Can CLL HCPs Gain More Understanding of Mutation Profiles?

How Can CLL HCPs Gain More Understanding of Mutation Profiles? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How might chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) HCPs gain more understanding of mutation profiles? Experts Dr. Jennifer Brown from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Dr. Callie Coombs from the University of California, Irvine discuss several mutations, how they commonly impact treatment, and acquired resistance to inhibitors.

Download Resource Guide  | Descargar guía de recursos

See More from EPEP CLL

Related Resources:

CLL Expert Updates on Diagnostic Tool and Technology Advances

CLL Expert Updates on Diagnostic Tool and Technology Advances

CLL Clinical Trials for Molecularly Defined Patient Subgroups

CLL Clinical Trials for Molecularly Defined Patient Subgroups

Managing CLL Side Effects | Innovative Strategies and Approaches

Managing CLL Side Effects | Innovative Strategies and Approaches

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Dr. Brown, how do CLL healthcare providers better understand mutation profiles including the emergence of novel CLL mutations over time?

Dr. Jennifer Brown:

Well, the first thing that’s important to recognize is that CLL is not defined by any particular mutation. The landscape is quite varied and we see a large number of different mutations at low percentages. Well, the second key point to remember is that there are different mutations at baseline and then there can be acquired mutations that include some of what we see at baseline, but also novel resistance mutations that we don’t ever see at base.

So at baseline, the most common mutations, which are somewhere in the 10 to 20 percent range of patients, although less than that if you have very early stage patients, affect the p53 gene, NOTCH1, SF3B1, and ATM. P53 is the most important because that one does influence our thinking about the patients and our choice of therapy in some cases. P53 can be altered in CLL in two different ways. Actually, the most common way is as a deletion, deletion of the short arm of chromosome 17 or 17P deletion. About 75 to 80 percent of patients that have that deletion will have a point mutation usually in the other p53 allele. So they have double knockout of p53.

A small percentage of people with the deletion will not have the mutation. And then a certain number of patients will have just the mutation without the deletion. And one of the things that I’ve been very interested in for a while that we’re still trying to understand better is the implications of these different combinations of the way p53 can be affected in people with CLL, and that it may, in fact, be more adverse to have both alleles knocked out than single, although we don’t have great data for that as yet because most of the data that we have has combined all of it together.

But it’s very important to test for the p53 mutation alone because even if patients have only that one, at present, we consider the treatment implications of it all similarly regardless of how the p53 gene is affected. And then NOTCH1 is a fairly common mutation that always worries us a lot, because it’s associated with Richter’s transformation, which is a very high-risk event, but we don’t know anything to do about that to try and prevent it or to alter our therapy based on it.

So at the moment it’s mostly something that we are aware of that we keep an eye on but not that changes therapy. And SF3B1, ATM, and this long list of other genes that can be mutated in just a few percent of CLL, and mostly what we know about them is some biology that’s been studied, and then the fact that the more of these mutations are mutated in a patient that is associated with a worse prognosis, just a total number.

But that’s not something also that really alters our therapy. And then when patients go through lines of therapy, they can sometimes acquire mutations in these genes. So a patient can acquire a mutation in p53 or in NOTCH after their second or third line of therapy. But the mutations that are hottest right now, or that people are most interested in are some of the mutations that occur as resistance to therapy.

So in particular, that means BTK mutations. Covalent BTK inhibitors have transformed the therapy of CLL, and they bind to the cysteine 481 residue of BTK. So that means, as you might imagine, that if you mutate that cysteine so that the inhibitor can’t bind, that will be associated with resistance. And that, in fact, is what has been found that the cysteine to serine mutation at 481 is the most common resistance mutation in patients on covalent BTK inhibitors.

And in the case of ibrutinib (Imbruvica), it makes the inhibitor into a much weaker and non-covalent inhibitor. In the case of acalabrutinib (Calquence) and zanubrutinib (Brukinsa), it probably abrogates all activity. And so that’s a mutation that we will sometimes look for in patients with clinical progression on those drugs. There’s also a mutation in BCL2 that can occur in patients in venetoclax (Venclexta).

So another example of an on target resistance mutation. The role of that one is a little bit less clear, and testing for it is not as widely available, but we’re still working on that. Resistance to venetoclax is probably more complicated than resistance to BTK inhibitors, although there’s also a subset of patients who will get BTK inhibitors who have novel mechanisms of resistance not related to BTK that we don’t really know anything about as yet.

And then finally, the non-covalent BTK inhibitors are becoming available, pirtobrutinib (Jaypirca) was approved for CLL in the United States in December for patients who’ve had covalent BTK inhibitors and venetoclax. And we’re starting to see different mutations in BTK at different sites, even though pirtobrutinib has activity against the 481 mutation. So there’s going to be a lot of activity in this area in the next few years probably.

Dr. Nicole Rochester:

Thank you so much Dr. Brown, that was a very comprehensive overview of the mutations. Dr. Coombs, do you have anything that you want to add to what Dr. Brown said perhaps specifically around mutations associated with the progression of CLL?

Dr. Callie Coombs:

Sure. So, that’s a hard act to follow. She really took us through a whirlwind of everything mutation-related. I think what I would like to focus on in my answer is, well, what should we be testing for on a day-to-day basis in our CLL practices and what are some common misconceptions? So specific to TP53, I would say this is the most important test as far as all of the genetic tests that influences what we do day to day in the care of patients with CLL. 

I test for this for my newly diagnosed patients who I think may be interested in enrolling in a clinical trial, first of all, so the standard of care in CLL is watch and wait, however, patients with higher risk disease may be eligible for trials looking at early intervention specifically the SWOG EVOLVE trial looking at early treatment. And so that’s one of the risk markers that can get a patient into the higher risk category of CLL where they could be eligible for a trial.

A common misconception I see is that 17p is the same thing as a TP53 mutation, it’s definitely not. So these are two different tests that have to be sent. 17p can be picked up on karyotype testing and on FISH testing where it looks for 17p deletion. However, mutations are a different test. And so I usually send a next gen sequencing assay that includes other genes.

However, you can test purely just for mutations in the TP53 gene, but again, that’s a sequencing test, so I’d like to convey that, somewhat a misunderstanding, but it’s such an important gene in CLL because when patients have TP53 aberrations, whether that’s 17P or a  TP53 mutation or both, given that they can occur in isolation or together, these patients should never get chemotherapy, because they have extremely terrible responses to chemo, and that should not be part of the therapies offered to these patients.

The other interesting, I’d say controversial at least in 2024, is what is the role for mutation testing in the clinic in the setting of acquired resistance to inhibitors? So I think it’s very clearly important in the research setting where I think learning about the C481 mutation among others in the setting of covalent BTK inhibitors has shown us a lot about mechanism of resistance. But in the clinic, I don’t necessarily think that’s something that needs to be universally applied, given that it most of the time doesn’t affect what we would do clinically. And so one example is a patient comes in progressing on ibrutinib, maybe about two-thirds of them may have a mutation in the C481S. However, if they’re clinically progressing, they need to switch therapy.


Share Your Feedback

Start Here: Bridging the CLL Expert and CLL Patient Voice

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) can sometimes feel overwhelming and complicated, but what can patients and care partners do to help improve their care? With this question in mind, the Patient Empowerment Network initiated the START HERE CLL program, which aims to close the gap in the expert and patient voice to build empowerment. 

START HERE CLL Program Resources

 The program series includes the following resources:

Lisa Hatfield and Dr. Danielle Brander

Patient-Expert Q&A Webinar Topics and Key Takeaways

In the Patient-Expert Q&A webinars, CLL experts Dr. Ryan Jacobs from Levine Cancer Institute, and Dr. Danielle Brander from Duke Cancer Institute shared their expert knowledge to help patients and care partners fortify their knowledge and confidence. The webinars provided some in-depth discussion along with key takeaways derived from questions submitted by patients. Some of the discussion covered:

Among some key points from the webinars, Lisa and Dr. Jacobs discussed the importance of genetic markers. Dr. Jacobs recommended CLL patients ask their doctor about their prognostic markers. “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.”

The watch-and-wait phase of CLL, also called active surveillance, is a common term heard by CLL patients. However, there are actually two types of CLL. “While some CLL patients experience very gradual disease progression and are actively monitored during a watch-and-wait phase, other patients may experience a more expedited CLL progression and will need more frequent treatment.”

Treatment advancements for CLL have been moving forward over recent years. Dr. Brander shared her perspective about the advancements. “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…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.” 

Vaccines for those with CLL have gathered more visibility in recent years with COVID-19. Dr. Jacobs addressed some questions about vaccination and shared, “I in general am recommending, as does the CDC, to get boosted every six months for patients with any level of immune suppression and having CLL qualifies you as that. And then I recommend all of the general vaccines that come with age, like, for example, the Shingrix vaccine for shingles is now safe to give to CLL patients because it’s a conjugate vaccine, it’s not a live virus vaccine. So we’re lucky now with just standard vaccines in the U.S., there are no live virus vaccines that the CLL patient has to worry about anymore, so I definitely encourage shingles, pneumonia vaccines, boosting for COVID. We’ll see if we get an RSV vaccine, that sounds like it’s on the horizon. Flu, of course.”

Worries about CLL progression are felt by many patients, and there are some ways to stay alert for warning signs. Expert Dr. Jacobs explained signs of CLL progression including new or worsened drenching night sweats, significant changes in a patient’s ability to function, and major changes in lymph nodes over a short period. Dr. Jacobs also shared some research updates for treatments that have shown success against progression to Richter’s transformation. “…I’ve been having some recent success using CAR T in those patients, and also now have a, I was thankfully getting it sort of off-label approval to do that, but now I actually have a clinical trial investigating axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta) in those patients.

Some CLL patients wonder about whether they can take a break from treatment. Dr. Brander addressed this question about BTK inhibitors. “…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 tolerate.”

Many CLL patients also wonder about the impact of exercise on their treatment response and their duration of treatment response. Dr. Brander explained about the impact of exercise. “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.

Whether patient fatigue is originating from CLL or from symptoms of old age can sometimes be difficult to determine. Dr. Jacobs shared some insight about fatigue. “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.

Some program participants provided valuable testimonials and insights on what they learned from the START HERE CLL Patient-Expert Q&A webinars:

Testimonials:

  • I love PEN webinars because I feel I have a direct connection with the best experts. I have many questions for my team after this program, thank you.”
  • “This program was stellar. I learned a lot that I have to address with my doctor.”
  • “I have a greater comfort level with promising treatment options.”
  • “I was most interested in learning about treatment options for relapsed patients and Dr. Jacobs provided great information. THANK YOU!”
  • “This was very helpful as I consider how to support my sister who has been diagnosed with CLL.”

Learnings:

  • “What BTK and BCL-2 inhibitors are…How Fish looks for DNA for Leukemia cells. And how exercise can help any cancer patient. Thanks for the program!”
  • “Even though I am Watch & Wait, I appreciated the information and explanation of the latest treatments.” 
  • “Fantastic program. Learned about many reasons docs decide not to treat.”
  • “I learned about some potential treatment options should I relapse.”

Many other questions were raised during the CLL Patient-Expert Q&A webinars. We hope you can use these valuable CLL resources to build your knowledge and confidence toward becoming a more empowered patient or care partner.

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Prognosis and Treatment Factors 

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Prognosis and Treatment Factors from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What do chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients need to know about treatment factors and prognosis? Expert Dr. Danielle Brander explains key tests involved in determining CLL treatment and prognosis. 

Dr. Danielle Brander is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Hematologic Malignancies & Cellular Therapy at Duke University Medical Center. Learn more about Dr. Danielle Brander.

Download Resource Guide   |  Descargar Guía en Español

See More from START HERE CLL

Related Programs:

Does CLL Research Show Potential for a Cure?

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research and EVOLVE Trial Updates

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research and EVOLVE Trial Updates 

Common Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Symptoms and Follow-Up Tests

Common Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Symptoms and Follow-Up Tests


Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:

So, Dr. Brander, how do you explain 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:

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.


Share Your Feedback

Create your own user feedback survey

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research and EVOLVE Trial Updates 

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research and EVOLVE Trial Updates from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What’s the latest in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) research? Expert Dr. Danielle Brander shares research updates and an update about the EVOLVE trial by the SWOG cooperative group.

Dr. Danielle Brander is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Hematologic Malignancies & Cellular Therapy at Duke University Medical Center. Learn more about Dr. Danielle Brander.

Download Resource Guide   |  Descargar Guía en Español

See More from START HERE CLL

Related Programs:

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Prognosis and Treatment Factors

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Prognosis and Treatment Factors

Common Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Symptoms and Follow-Up Tests

Common Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Symptoms and Follow-Up Tests


Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:

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 market 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:

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.

Dr. Danielle Brander:

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. 


Share Your Feedback

Create your own user feedback survey

CLL Patient Expert Q&A: Dr. Danielle Brander

CLL Patient Expert Q&A: Dr. Danielle Brander from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

START HERE bridges the expert and patient voice, enabling chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients to feel comfortable asking questions of their healthcare team with precision. In this program, CLL expert Dr. Danielle Brander speaks to managing CLL side effects, emerging novel CLL therapies and treatment options for CLL progression.

Dr. Danielle Brander is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Hematologic Malignancies & Cellular Therapy at Duke University Medical Center. Learn more about Dr. Danielle Brander.

Download Resource Guide   |  Descargar Guía en Español

See More from START HERE CLL

Related Programs:

Are There Signs of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Progression?

Are There Signs of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Progression?

CLL and BTK Inhibitor Treatment: What Are the Risk Factors?

Can CLL Treatment Cause Gastrointestinal Side Effects?

Can CLL Treatment Cause Gastrointestinal Side Effects?


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. 


Share Your Feedback

Create your own user feedback survey

CLL Genetic Markers: What Should I Ask About Prognostic Factors?

CLL Genetic Markers: What Should I Ask About Prognostic Factors? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What’s key for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients to know about genetic markers? Expert Dr. Ryan Jacobs explains genetic markers checked in standard CLL testing, questions to ask your doctor, and common treatments used with specific genetic markers.

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

Download Resource Guide   |  Descargar Guía en Español

See More from START HERE CLL

Related Programs:

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

Concerned About CLL Watch and Wait? Start Here

CLL and Vaccines | Vital Advice for Protecting Patients


Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:

“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 can 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 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 (Venclexta). And so we tend to treat those patients with a drug like acalabrutinib (Calquence) or zanubrutinib (Brukinsa) 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 it 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 (Gazyva) 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 who are still free of progression.

Share Your Feedback

Create your own user feedback survey

What AML Mutations Are Associated With Adverse Outcomes?

What AML Mutations Are Associated With Adverse Outcomes? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Which acute myeloid leukemia (AML) mutations are linked to adverse outcomes? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center shares insight..Learn about different mutations, treatment options, and the importance of testing.

[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver:Check for mutations to the frontline setting…absolutely, these include FLT3, IDH1, IDH2, TP53, and NPM1 MLL this list will likely continue to grow as we get more targeted therapies in immunotherapies and find benefit in particular subsets, but also in the relapse setting to not depend on the baseline molecular profile because the lipids actually can change. We do see AML as a multiclonal disease, and there can be emergence and escape of different clones, so to check again in the relapse for those same mutations and both in the frontline, the relapse setting.

Download Resource Guide

See More from [ACT]IVATED AML

Related Resources:

Long-Term Effects Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Should Know

Long-Term Effects Acute Myeloid Leukemia Patients Should Know

AML Treatment Approaches Expand for Older and High-Risk Patients

A Look at Lower Intensity Chemotherapy in Untreated AML

Transcript: 

Art:

Dr. Daver, what mutations are associated with adverse outcomes in AML? What are the best time points to check for these mutations, and what therapeutic options do you consider for patients or harboring these mutations?

Dr. Naval Daver:

This is very, very important, a mutational targeted therapy is probably the biggest overarching change that has occurred in acute myeloid leukemia in the last decade, and of course to implement those therapies. One has to know the mutational profile, the five big mutations that whenever I speak to my patients in clinic today that I talk about wanting to know before I embark on any therapy are FLT3 or FLD3, IDH1, IDH2, TP53, and now, more and more recently, NPM1 or MLL, actually six different mutations, cytogenetic operations, and the reason is that we do have targeted therapies for these mutations, some of these targeted therapies are already approved in the frontline setting like the FLT3 inhibitors, some of these are being evaluated in ongoing Phase III  studies like the CD47 magrolimab for TP53.

As well as the menin inhibitors now in frontline setting in combinations of intensive chemo or HMA venetoclax (Venclexta), or MLL NPM1 but I think identifying these targets and getting the patients on the right clinical trial personalized to that target for them has historically shown significant improvements, 20 to 30 percent survival improvements in FLT3, IDH and potentially for the TP53 MLL NPM-1 so definitely on newly diagnosed, I would recommend getting that information and then going on to either standard of care the drugs already approved or clinical trial that incororates that targeted therapy or immunotherapy for a target in the relapse setting the two most important mutations today, or the three most important are FLT3, then IDH as well as MLL NPM1. 

Three inhibitors like gilteritinib (Xospata) are already approved. Similarly, IDH inhibitors and combinations of gilteritinib or IDH with venetoclax  are really showing very good outcomes, even in relapse three, which about 20 years ago was a very, very, very poor outcome. T

oday, we can get up to 80 percent of these patients to remission, half of them into transplant, and a good number may have long-term survival post-transplant, so it’s very important to not mislead to an IDH1, IDH2 to a relapse setting.

And then now with the menin inhibitors we’re also looking in all our patients for MLL rearrangement, NPM1 in relapse, because this could open the door for menin inhibitor-based therapy, which again can give up to 50 percent remission and a path to transplant. Now many patients at MD Anderson who have gone through too many inhibitors, transplant and are alive and ongoing at two and three years.

So the bottom line is, it’s important you check at my activation tip for this question is it’s important to check for mutations to the frontline setting…absolutely, these include FLT3, IDH1, IDH2, TP53, and NPM1 MLL this list will likely continue to grow as we get more targeted therapies in immunotherapies and find benefit in particular subsets, but also in the relapse setting to not depend on the baseline molecular profile because the lipids actually can change.

We do see AML as a multiclonal disease, and there can be emergence and escape of different clones, so to check again in the relapse for those same mutations and both in the frontline, the relapse setting.

To try to get on to a therapy, whether it’s approved or clinical trial that incorporates those targeted therapies, which has historically shown a significant improvement in both response and long-term survival. 

Share Your Feedback About [ACT]IVATED AML

Challenges in Treating TP53-Mutated AML, Hope on the Horizon

Challenges in Treating TP53-Mutated AML, Hope on the Horizon from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

TP53-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatment has some challenges. Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center shares his perspective. Learn about promising treatments on the horizon for this AML subgroup

[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “The TP53 mutation remains the most difficult subset of acute myeloid leukemia, there is hope on the horizon with new treatments such as CD47 antibodies and targeted therapies like APR that are being looked at, and also a strong consideration for allogeneic transplant in TP53, because this seems to be the only modality associated with a good chance of cure after achieving remission with one of the frontline therapies.”

Download Resource Guide

Download Resource Guide en español

See More from [ACT]IVATED AML

Related Resources:

What Are the ASH 2022 Takeaways for AML Patients

What Are the ASH 2022 Takeaways for AML Patients

Why Is the Menin Pathway Important in AML

Why Is the Menin Pathway Important in AML?

What Is MRD-Positive Acute Myeloid Leukemia

What Is MRD-Positive Acute Myeloid Leukemia?

Transcript: 

Art:

Dr. Daver, what have we learned about TP53-mutated AML? And what is the takeaway for these patients?

Dr. Naval Daver:

TP53-mutated AML remains the most difficult molecular subset of all acute myeloid leukemia. Patients who have this mutation, unfortunately, do not respond well to any of the established standard care therapies, including intensive chemotherapy, the HMA alone, such as azacitidine (Onureg or Vidaza), decitabine (Dacogen) alone, or even HMA venetoclax (Venclexta) with all of these, we do see responses, especially with HMA venetoclax or intensive chemotherapy, we can see 15 to 55 percent remission rate, but the remission, very short lived, early relapses and the median overall survival across all of these currently available standards of cares are between six to 10 months.

So there has been an intense effort in the last six, seven years to develop TP53-directed therapies or therapies that will work regardless of TP53 mutation, and there are two drugs this time that are very promising and being evaluated as ongoing Phase II and Phase III studies.

One of them is an immunotherapy drug called magrolimab which seems to have very similar activity and probability with good response rates in TP53-mutated AML. This has been completed in a single arm phase 1B study in front line TP53-mutated AML where we saw close to 50 percent CR, CRI complete permission rates. And median survival was above 11 months in older unfit TP53, which is better than any survival we have seen in the past in this population.

The other study was with the oral care targeted therapy towards TP53, called APR, and this therapy was specifically designed to target the TP53 mutation, and this is being evaluated in the frontline setting in combination with a society in venetoclax. We hope that these regimens are these novel therapies, one or both of them will be able to at least incrementally improve their current outcomes in TP53.

The other area where we have really been doing a lot of research, and I think the data is suggesting, is that allogeneic transplant may work for separate, and we are routinely considering transplant in these patients in the frontline setting, once they are able to achieve remission.

My activation tip is the TP53 mutation remains the most difficult subset of acute myeloid leukemia, there is hope on the horizon with new treatments such as CD47 antibodies and targeted therapies like APR that are being looked at, and also a strong consideration for allogeneic transplant in TP53, because this seems to be the only modality associated with a good chance of cure after achieving remission with one of the frontline therapies. 

Share Your Feedback About [ACT]IVATED AML

A Look at Ongoing Acute Myeloid Leukemia Phase III Trials

A Look at Ongoing Acute Myeloid Leukemia Phase III Trials from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What are the acute myeloid leukemia (AML) Phase III clinical trials that are ongoing? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center shares his perspective about encouraging trials. Learn about the MORPHO Study and others. 

[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “The maintenance with gilteritinib and the MORPHO Study, as well as the relapsed refractory study as well as the use of a e-selectin inhibitor called uproleselan, and hopefully this will lead to approval of the next batch of three or four drugs, which will further improve outcomes for frontline as well as relapsed AML.”

Download Resource Guide

Download Resource Guide en español

See More from [ACT]IVATED AML

Related Resources:

What Are the ASH 2022 Takeaways for AML Patients

What Are the ASH 2022 Takeaways for AML Patients?

Why Is the Menin Pathway Important in AML

Why Is the Menin Pathway Important in AML?

A Look at Lower Intensity Chemotherapy in Untreated AML

A Look at Lower Intensity Chemotherapy in Untreated AML

Transcript: 

Art:

Dr. Daver, can you speak to some of the ongoing Phase III trials in AML, what are you most excited about?

Dr. Naval Daver:

This time there are numerous ongoing phase three in acute myeloid leukemia, some in the frontline, some in the relapse setting. In the frontline setting, the ones that I’m most excited about are trials incorporating a novel immunotherapeutic pathway called the CD47 antibody that works to activation of macrophages, these are looking at a very high-risk molecular group of acute myeloid leukemia, the TP53 in adverse cytogenetics, and there are two randomized phase threes with this agent, one focused on TP53 mutated AML looking at the azacitidine and magrolimab versus the current standard of care FDA-approved azacitidine-venetoclax (Onureg or Vidaza-Venclexta) in TP53 mutated. 

The other is actually looking at all older unfit AML so trying to improve on azacitidine venetoclax doublet with a triplet, so this is looking at azacitidine venetoclax magrolimab versus azacitidine-venetoclax placebo so if both of these trials are positive, then this will lead to incorporation of immunotherapy in the frontline setting in AML, which is exciting and something we’ve been working towards for the last 10, 15 years.

The other Phase III trials in the frontline setting or in the maintenance setting really that I’m excited about is called the MORPHO Study…this is using a FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib (Xospata) as a maintenance post-transplant, so we know FLT3-mutated patients respond well, when they receive intensive induction FLT3 inhibitor, we still need to take them to transplant because even though the initial response is good, many can relapse. 

So we actually try to give to the cycles of intensive induction for the move to transplant, and then if we start there, we still see at about 40 percent of these patients can relapse in the next three years, so this has led to efforts to add a maintenance FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib single agent post-transplant as a maintenance for one to two years versus placebo observation, which has historically been a standard of care, and so this is being looked at a large multi-center called the MORPHO Study that we hope to get data from in the near future.

Another study in the similar design that’s being done by the UK cooperative group is looking at maintenance with the oral azacitidine, post-transplant for non-FLT3, so similarly, can we overall improved outcomes not just for FLT3, but the general patient population is going to transplant by using the maintenance oral azacitidine post-transplant versus placebo.

And in the relapse setting, there is a very novel unique oral therapy drug called uproleselan, which is an e-selectin inhibitor, and this agent is now being combined with traditional salvaged chemotherapy such as FLAG-Ida mec versus the placebo mec plus FLAG-Ida or mec in the relapse setting.

And that’s what he’s actually been completed to enrollment, and we’re hoping to hear data from that in the near future. So these are the major randomized studies focusing on TP53, FLT3, and relapsed refractory AML  that we’re looking for in the near future and hopefully could lead to two or three more new approvals in the AML space.

My activation tip for this question is that there are ongoing numerous frontline Phase III as well as relapsed refractory Phase III, targeted immunotherapy approaches, specifically among these we’re excited about the CD47 antibodies. The maintenance with gilteritinib and the MORPHO Study, as well as the relapsed refractory study as well as the use of a e-selectin inhibitor called uproleselan, and hopefully this will lead to approval of the next batch of three or four drugs, which will further improve outcomes for frontline as well as relapsed AML. 

Share Your Feedback About [ACT]IVATED AML

What Does Triplet Therapy in AML Mean for the Future?

What Does Triplet Therapy in AML Mean for the Future? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What do acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients need to know about triplet therapy? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center shares his perspective. Learn about the meaning, progress, and outlook for triplet therapy. 

[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver:Some of the early data with the FLT3 inhibitor as well as the CD47 antibody triplets are showing very, very promising activity and are now moving into larger multi-center and randomized studies.”

Download Resource Guide

Download Resource Guide en español

See More from [ACT]IVATED AML

Related Resources:

What Are Some Clinical Predictors for Relapse in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

What Are Some Clinical Predictors for Relapse in Acute Myeloid Leukemia?

Why Is the Menin Pathway Important in AML

Why Is the Menin Pathway Important in AML?

Challenges in Treating TP53-Mutated AML, Hope on the Horizon

Transcript: 

Art:

Dr. Daver, what does triplet therapy in AML mean for the future?

Dr. Naval Daver:

So when we say triplet therapy, what we’re really thinking about is building on the existing FDA-approved combination of HMA venetoclax (Venclexta), so as a background venetoclax, showed a CR, CRI which is a complete remission rate of about 70 to 75 percent with the median survival in 15 months.

This was in older patients, about 75 years in age, those who were not considered fit for intensive chemotherapy, although this was a major step forward in comparison to what we have seen with traditional low intensities with azacitidine (Onureg or Vidaza), decitabine (Dacogen) alone, we do see the three-year survival is about 25 to 30 percent. 

So this is progress compared to 10 percent long-term survival, we used to get a decade ago, but, of course, we want to improve on that. Also, a molecular analysis of data has shown that there are certain molecular subsets that don’t respond as well to azacitidine, venetoclax or if they respond they relapse quickly these include FLT3 mutated and the TP53 mutated as well as potentially MLL rearranged.

And so here we have started incorporating the targeted therapies like inhibitors like the menin inhibitors like CD47 antibodies to target those specific high-risk or bad molecular cytogenetic groups, and we are seeing that with the combinations of these three drugs, especially for those particular molecular subsets.

So azacitidine and venetoclax for FLT3 inhibitor for FLT3 mutator, azacitidine, and venetoclax, magrolimab for TP53 mutated, the response rates that we’re getting, as well as the depth of response and the early trends towards survival are looking very, very promising compared to what we have seen with azacitidine venetoclax alone.

So we believe, and I personally believe that these three drug combinations, the so-called triplets will actually be eventually the way to go forward now, that means that one has to realize that when you add a third drug, there is a cumulative myelosuppression, azacitidine-venetoclax is already a myelosuppressive regimen. 

Yes, it’s manageable, but it is myelosuppressive. And the third drug, this can become more cumulative, so we have been working for the last three, four years and continue to work on those optimization because since we are seeing true synergy but pre-clinically and what we think in the clinic, we are not needing to give full doses and we’re doing reduced durations of venetoclax and those with FLT3 inhibitor, and now we feel that some of those triplets are actually giving very, very, very good efficacy.

There’s a lot of discussion in the community of whether we need to combine all two drugs up front or can be sequence these drugs or can we introduce a targeted therapy based on a molecular escape, and I think a lot of these will have to be evaluated and many of these are being looked at in various trials, but I do think the bottom line is that bringing in your targeted therapy or immunotherapies early on in the frontline setting and some way or the other is probably where you’re going to get the most bang for the buck and the most benefit in curing patients long-term rather than trying to reserve them for the salvage, because in salvage AML historically, nothing has really been able to improve the long-term cure rate significantly.

So the activation tip for this question is that now with the identification of certain molecular subsets that have poorer outcomes with the HMA venetoclax, we have started incorporating targeted and immunotherapies in the earlier settings, either up front in the three drug combination or an early sequential approach.

And we believe that with such combinations, we may be able to achieve deeper remission and longer responses. Some of the early data with the FLT3 inhibitor as well as the CD47 antibody triplets are showing very, very promising activity and are now moving into larger multi-center and randomized studies. 

Share Your Feedback About [ACT]IVATED AML

A Look at Treatment Strategies for High-Risk AML Patients

A Look at Treatment Strategies for High-Risk AML Patients from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatments are available for high-risk patients? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center discusses various mutations, potential for cure, and clinical trials. Learn about the outlook for high-risk AML treatments.

[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver:The best way to get up to these agents is to go on clinical trials and incorporate these therapies, both in the frontline setting as well as in the relapsed refractory setting.” 

Download Resource Guide

Download Resource Guide en español

See More from [ACT]IVATED AML

Related Resources:

What Are Some Clinical Predictors for Relapse in Acute Myeloid Leukemia

What Are Some Clinical Predictors for Relapse in Acute Myeloid Leukemia?

Assessing Untreated AML Patients Who Are Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy

Assessing Untreated AML Patients Who Are Ineligible for Intensive Chemotherapy

What Does Triplet Therapy in AML Mean for the Future (2)

What Does Triplet Therapy in AML Mean for the Future?

Transcript: 

Art:

Dr. Daver, what treatment strategies are available for high-risk AML patients?

Dr. Naval Daver:

High-risk AML patients includes a group of a number of different mutations, and cytogenetic abnormalities, this includes TP53 mutation, as well as adverse cytogenetics, which includes chromosome 17, deletion 5, deletion 7, as well as complex carrier type. This entire group historically had a poor outcome and has had limited responses to traditional intensive chemo, even if we achieve responses there, usually short-lived.

We do have some patients where we are able to achieve remission with intensive chemo or with azacitidine-venetoclax (Vidaza-Venclexta) and transition and transmission them transplant with about 25 to 30 percent potentially achieving a long-term remission and possible cure. 

But aside from that, there is very little potential to cure these patients with just traditional intensive chemo, venetoclax in this area, there has been developments with the emergence new class of immunotherapy drugs, called CD47 antibodies, the one that’s most advanced in this field is a drug called magrolimab, and we are evaluating the drugs such as magrolimab in combination with azacitidine as well as in combination with azacitidine-venetoclax and are seeing high remission rates, both in TP53 mutated and TP53 wild type.

So this pathway that works by activating a macrophages or the immune system to attack the tumor cells, seems to be in some way mutation agnostic with response rates being maintained even in the traditional high-risk subsets, especially such as TP53 and complex cytogenetics for some of the other high-risk groups such as MLL, we’re using targeted therapies like menin inhibitors, and these seem to work well in those patients who have these adverse cytogenetic molecular abnormalities, so there is progress, and we think that the CD47 antibody field and hopefully the main inhibitor feed will be able to improve outcomes in these traditionally molecular cytogenetic subsets.

My activation point related to this question is for high-risk mutations and cytogenetic commonalities such as TP53 complex carrier chromosome 17 MLL,  best hope at this time is in clinical trials evaluating novel therapies such as CD47 antibodies and menin inhibitors. These are not yet FDA-approved, but based on emerging data from the ongoing Phase I, II studies, we think that there is a good chance they will be approved in the future.

However, this time, the best way to get up to these agents is to go on clinical trials and incorporate these therapies, both in the frontline setting as well as in the relapsed refractory setting. 

Share Your Feedback About [ACT]IVATED AML

What Different AML Subtypes Are More Prevalent in Certain Demographics?

What Different AML Subtypes Are More Prevalent in Certain Demographics? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Are some acute myeloid leukemia (AML) subtypes more common in some demographic groups? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center discusses different forms of AML. Learn about the extent of knowledge about AML subtype demographics.

[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “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.

Download Resource Guide

Download Resource Guide en español

See More from [ACT]IVATED AML

Related Resources:

What Are the Latest Acute Myeloid Leukemia Therapies

What Are the Latest Acute Myeloid Leukemia Therapies?

How Can We Address Disparities in AML Among Diverse Populations

Transcript: 

Art:

Dr. Daver, what are the different subtypes of AML, are various subtypes more prevalent in certain demographics?

Dr. Naval Daver:

The main way we have classified AML has actually been changing, so when we talk about subtypes  there are actually two different classification systems like WHO and the ICC or ELM classification system. Traditionally, we have been using the ELM for prognostic classification of AML, this divides patients into three major buckets, what we call a favorable intermediate and adverse, and these are based on the underlying chromosome cytogenetics abnormalities and molecular or next-generation sequencing profile of the patients.

In general, in AML there has actually been limited data and publications regarding the demographic distribution, whether it’s regional or racial or cultural, one of the things that we do know, for example, in acute lymphoblastic leukemia is that in the Hispanic population, there seems to be higher frequency of things like FLT3-positive ALL. 

But in the AML population, there actually does not seem to be, at least based on published data, huge differences in the molecular or cytogenetic presentation. We have seen some data from different countries that there may be a difference in the prevalence of communications across different regions. For example, in Japan, we do see that the incidence of FLT3 and NPM1 appears to be lower than what has been reported in the United States.

Also, we see in Europe and United States, the incidence of these mutations with FLT3, NPM1 is similar, and then we are seeing in some of the larger academic centers in the U.S., there is an enrichment of referral of patients with TP53, which is very adverse and most difficult to treat mutation, and a lot of that we think is because patients with solid tumors and with other hematological malignancies are surviving longer with the CAR-T therapies, immunotherapies, and because it is over time, they have a risk of developing second AML, which is enriched for TP53 mutation, so we do see over the last two decades that from TP53, which used to be about 5 percent to 10 percent, is now up to 20 percent to 25 percent of AML and growing in proportion because it’s better survival and solid tumors and lymphomas.  

The activation tip related to this question is that in general, they don’t review discrepancies based on geography and race, and region in the molecular cytogenetics. However, we do see differences in patients who have received prior chemotherapy, radiation therapy, AML therapy for other solid tumors and lymphoma.

These 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. 

Share Your Feedback About [ACT]IVATED AML