Is it time for PET-guided therapy in follicular lymphoma?

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is now established as the gold-standard imaging modality for both staging and response assessment in follicular lymphoma (FL). In this Perspective, we propose where PET can, and cannot, guide clinicians in their therapeutic approach. PET at diagnosis and pretreatment is important for staging, with greater sensitivity compared with standard CT, and consequent improved outcomes in truly limited-stage FL. Small data sets suggesting that a high baseline standardized uptake value (SUVmax) identifies de novo histologic transformation (HT) have not been corroborated by data from GALLIUM, the largest prospective study to examine modern therapies for FL. Nonetheless, the role of baseline quantitative PET measures requires further clarification. The median survival of patients with newly diagnosed FL is now potentially >20 years. Treatment of symptomatic FL aims to achieve remission and optimize quality of life for as long as possible, with many patients achieving a "functional cure" at the cost of unwanted treatment effects. Several studies have identified end-of-induction (EOI) PET after initial chemoimmunotherapy in patients with a high tumor burden as strongly predictive of both progression-free and overall survival, and EOI PET is being evaluated as a platform for response-adapted treatment. Unmet needs remain: improving the inferior survival for patients remaining PET positive and quantifying the progression-free survival and time to next treatment advantage, and additional toxicity of anti-CD20 maintenance in patients who achieve complete metabolic remission. In the absence of an overall survival advantage for frontline antibody maintenance, the question of using PET to guide the therapeutic approach is more important than ever in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cyclophosphamide plus etoposide is a safe and effective mobilization regimen in patients with multiple myeloma.

High-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation is a major component in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma. As a prerequisite, the successful collection of a sufficient number of viable peripheral blood hematopoietic CD34+ cells is critical. A common standard protocol for mobilization is currently not defined and critically discussed especially in German-speaking Europe. In times of the Covid-19 pandemic, safe and effective strategies have to be chosen to minimize hospitalization times and severe courses. In this single-center retrospective analysis, safety and efficacy of cyclophosphamide plus etoposide (CE) and growth-factor support (n = 33) was compared to cyclophosphamide mono treatment and growth-factor support (n = 49) in 82 patients with multiple myeloma at first diagnosis. CE was superior to cyclophosphamide mono with a significantly higher number of collected CD34+ cells (15.46 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg vs. 9.92 × 106 CD34+ cells/kg), significantly faster engraftment of granulocytes after stem cell transplantation (day 10.5 vs. day 11.6), shorter duration of the inpatient stay (17.47 days vs. 19.16 days) and significantly less transfusions (8.82 % vs. 30.61 % patients receiving transfusions). The safety profile was comparable in both groups and in line with published data. We conclude that CE is a safe and highly effective mobilization protocol in patients with multiple myeloma at first diagnosis and appears to be superior to the commonly used cyclophosphamide mono regimen.

Ixazomib-based frontline therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in real-life practice showed comparable efficacy and safety profile with those reported in clinical trial: a multi-center study.

The induction therapy containing ixazomib, an oral proteasome inhibitor, has shown favorable efficacy and safety in clinical trials, but its experience in real-life remains limited. In routine practice, few patients received ixazomib-based induction therapy due to reasons including (1) patients' preference on oral regimens, (2) concerns on adverse events (AEs) of other intravenous/subcutaneous regimens, (3) requirements for less center visits, and (4) fears of COVID-19 and other infectious disease exposures. With the aim of assessing the real-life effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-based induction therapy, we performed this multi-center, observational study on 85 newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients from 14 medical centers. Ixazomib-based regimens included ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in 44.7% of patients, ixazomib-dexamethasone (Id) in 29.4%, and Id plus another agent (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, or daratumumab) in 25.9%. Different ixazomib-based therapies were applied due to (1) financial burdens or limitations on local health insurance coverage, (2) concerns on treatment tolerance, and (3) drug accessibility issue. Ten patients received ixazomib maintenance. The median age was 67 years; 43.5% had ISS stage III disease; 48.2% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score ≥ 2; and 17.6% with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Overall response rate for all 85 patients was 95.3%, including 65.9% very good partial response or better and 29.5% complete responses. The median time to response was 30 days. The response rate was similar across different ixazomib-based regimens. Median progression-free survival was not reached. Severe AEs (≥ grade 3) were reported in 29.4% of patients. No grade 3/4 peripheral neuropathy (PN) occurred. Patients received a median of 6 (range 1-20) cycles of ixazomib treatment; 56.6% remained on treatment at data cutoff; 15.3% discontinued treatment due to intolerable AEs. These results support that the ixazomib-based frontline therapy was highly effective with acceptable toxicity in routine practice and the ixazomib oral regimens could be good alternative options for NDMM patients.

Managing the front-line treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma and high-grade B cell lymphoma during the COVID-19 outbreak.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically challenged care for cancer patients, especially those with active treatment who represent a vulnerable population for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Aggressive lymphoid neoplasms, such as diffuse large B cell lymphoma and high-grade B cell lymphoma, need to be treated without delay in order to get the best disease outcome. Because of that, our clinical practice was changed to minimise the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection while continuing haematological treatment. In this report, we analyse the management of front-line therapy in 18 patients during the COVID-19 outbreak, as well as the results of the implemented measures in their outcome.