Ophthalmic Manifestations in Patients with Blood Malignancies.

Ocular complications can occur in up to 90% of patients with blood malignancies. Such complications range from direct infiltration to local hemostatic imbalance and treatment-related toxicity. This narrative review is based on a systematic computerized search of the literature conducted until January 2024 and examines the common ocular complications associated with blood cancers. Ocular complications from primary disease include mass effects from ocular adnexal lymphomas and intraocular lymphomas, with B-cell lymphomas accounting for 95% of primary ocular presentations. Secondary disease involvement from systemic hematological malignancies can lead to a wide range of ocular manifestations, such as leukemic retinopathy. Furthermore, toxicity from antineoplastic therapies and ocular graft versus host disease (oGVHD) after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation present additional risks to ocular health. In conclusion, ocular complications in blood cancer patients are an integral part of patient management, requiring regular ophthalmic evaluations and close collaboration between oncologists and ophthalmologists. Advances in therapy and an increased focus on early symptom recognition are essential for preserving vision and enhancing patient quality of life.

Primary vs. pre-emptive anti-seizure medication prophylaxis in anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Seizures may occur in up to 30% of non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients who received anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy, yet the optimal anti-seizure medication (ASM) prevention strategy has not been thoroughly investigated. METHODS: Consecutive patients affected by refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma who received anti-CD19 CAR T-cells were included. Patients were selected and assessed using similar internal protocols. ASM was started either as a primary prophylaxis (PP-group) before CAR T-cells infusion or as a pre-emptive therapy (PET-group) only upon the onset of neurotoxicity development. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-six patients were included (PP-group = 88, PET-group = 66). Overall, neurotoxicity and severe neurotoxicity occurred in 45 (29%) and 20 (13%) patients, respectively, equally distributed between the two groups. Five patients experienced epileptic events (PET-group = 3 [4%]; PP-group = 2 [2%]). For all the PET-group patients, seizure/status epilepticus occurred in the absence of overt CAR-T-related neurotoxicity, whereas patients in the PP-group experienced brief seizures only in the context of critical neurotoxicity with progressive severe encephalopathy. ASMs were well-tolerated by all patients, even without titration. No patients developed epilepsy or required long-term ASMs. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that both primary and pre-emptive anti-seizure prophylaxis are safe and effective in anti-CD19 CAR T-cell recipients. Clinical rationale suggests a possible more favourable profile of primary prophylaxis, yet no definitive conclusion of superiority between the two ASM strategies can be drawn from our study.