Bendamustine and rituximab is well-tolerated and efficient in the treatment of indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma in elderly: A single center observational study.

Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) is a preferred first-line therapy for indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (iNHL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL); however, few reports on BR performance in elderly patients are available to date. We compared safety and efficacy of BR in patients ≥70 years (elderly) vs <70 years (younger) treated at our institution. Among 201 patients, 113 were elderly (median age: 77 years), including 38 patients ≥80 years, and 88 were younger (median age: 62 years). Elderly patients had more bone marrow involvement by lymphoma, anemia, ECOG status 3 and high-risk disease follicular lymphoma (P < .05 for all). Fifty-four percent of elderly received full dose of bendamustine vs 79.5% of younger patients. More elderly patients (54%) vs younger (43.2%) experienced treatment delay. Less elderly proceeded to rituximab maintenance. Overall, the number of adverse events per patient and transformed B-Cell lymphoma/secondary malignancies were similar between groups. Elderly patients had less febrile neutropenia, rituximab-associated infusion reactions, but more herpes zoster reactivation. There were more deaths in the elderly (37.2%) vs younger (10.2%) groups (P < .001), mainly due to non-lymphoma-related causes. With median follow-up of 42 months [4.0-97.0] disease-free survival for the elderly was similar to younger patients. There was no difference between patients <80 and ≥80 years (P = .274). In conclusion, the real-world elderly patients have more advanced disease and higher ECOG status. BR is well-tolerated; elderly patients had lower incidence of febrile neutropenia. Dose reduction and treatment delays are common, but BR efficacy was not affected even in very old patients (≥80 years).

Virtual Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies: A Single-Institution Experience.

PURPOSE: The use of virtual care rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and has persisted as a routine method of care delivery. Much of the literature on virtual care in oncology has focused on solid tumors, and little is known about its application in malignant hematology. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with hematologic malignancies at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from October 2019 to March 2021 to determine the use of virtual care during this period, cost-savings associated with virtual visits, and patient satisfaction. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the Your Voice Matters survey, a provincially administered survey to evaluate patient experience. RESULTS: Overall, 12.1% (1,122/9,295) of patients had a virtual visit during the study period (0% from October 2019 to February 2020, 36% from March to August 2020, and 30% from September 2020 to March 2021), of which 36% were in the lymphoma clinic and 46% were in the myeloma clinic. The mean two-way opportunity cost for an in-person visit was $168.00 CAD per person with public transit, and $120.40 CAD per person driving. Responses to the Your Voice Matters survey indicated that patients with a virtual visit reported that physical symptoms were discussed appropriately (mean 4.73/5), and were more likely to ask for a follow-up virtual visit compared with patients with in-person visits (mean 4.50/5 v 3.02/5, respectively; P < .01). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that virtual care may be a feasible and well-received tool for delivering care to a substantial proportion of patients with hematologic malignancies, while enabling substantial cost-savings to patients.

Impact of Geriatric Assessment and Management on Quality of Life, Unplanned Hospitalizations, Toxicity, and Survival for Older Adults With Cancer: The Randomized 5C Trial.

PURPOSE: American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends that older adults with cancer being considered for chemotherapy receive geriatric assessment (GA) and management (GAM), but few randomized controlled trials have examined its impact on quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 5C study was a two-group parallel 1:1 single-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial of GAM for 6 months versus usual oncologic care. Eligible patients were age 70+ years, diagnosed with a solid tumor, lymphoma, or myeloma, referred for first-/second-line chemotherapy or immunotherapy or targeted therapy, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. The primary outcome QOL was measured with the global health scale of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaire and analyzed with a pattern mixture model using an intent-to-treat approach (at 6 and 12 months). Secondary outcomes included functional status, grade 3-5 treatment toxicity; health care use; satisfaction; cancer treatment plan modification; and overall survival. RESULTS: From March 2018 to March 2020, 350 participants were enrolled. Mean age was 76 years and 40.3% were female. Fifty-four percent started treatment with palliative intent. Eighty-one (23.1%) patients died. GAM did not improve QOL (global QOL of 4.4 points [95% CI, 0.9 to 8.0] favoring the control arm). There was also no difference in survival, change in treatment plan, unplanned hospitalization/emergency department visits, and treatment toxicity between groups. CONCLUSION: GAM did not improve QOL. Most intervention group participants received GA on or after treatment initiation per patient request. Considering recent completed trials, GA may have benefit if completed before treatment selection. The COVID-19 pandemic may have affected our QOL outcome and intervention delivery for some participants.