Routine consolidation of early stage primary bone lymphoma with radiation therapy does not improve outcomes.

Not available.

Mosunetuzumab in combination with CHOP in previously untreated DLBCL: safety and efficacy results from a phase 2 study.

Up to 40% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are refractory to or relapse after first-line therapy, highlighting the need for better treatments. Mosunetuzumab is a CD20 × CD3 bispecific antibody that engages and redirects T cells to eliminate malignant B cells. In this phase 2, open-label study (NCT03677141), 40 patients (52.5% with international prognostic index ≥3) with previously untreated DLBCL initiated 6 cycles of IV mosunetuzumab with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) chemotherapy. Mosunetuzumab was administered in cycle 1 as step-up doses to mitigate cytokine release syndrome [CRS], and a dose of 30 mg was given on day 1 of cycles 2-6. Efficacy end points included objective and complete response rates, as determined by the investigator, via positron emission tomography-computed tomography, using Lugano 2014 criteria (87.5% and 85.0%, respectively). At a median follow-up of 32.0 months, the estimated 2-year progression-free survival and event-free survival rates were 65.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.5-81.4) and 60.4% (95% CI, 44.7-76.1), respectively. CRS occurred in 60.0% of patients; all events were grade 1 (45.0%) or grade 2 (15.0%) and occurred primarily in cycle 1. Mosunetuzumab-related grade ≥3 neurologic adverse events (AEs) potentially consistent with immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 1 patient (2.5%). Grade 5 AEs were reported in 2 patients. Neutropenia occurred in 70.0% of patients, mostly during cycle 1 and was of short duration. These findings demonstrate promising activity and a manageable safety profile for mosunetuzumab-CHOP and warrant further investigation of mosunetuzumab in first-line combination regimens for DLBCL.

Overcoming Barriers to Referral for Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma.

Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most prevalent subtype of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Although outcomes to frontline therapy are encouraging, patients who are refractory to or in relapse after first-line therapy experience inferior outcomes. A significant proportion of patients treated with additional lines of cytotoxic chemotherapy ultimately succumb to their disease, as established in the SCHOLAR-1 study. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is a novel approach to cancer management that reprograms a patient's own T cells to better target and eliminate cancer cells. It was initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL as a third line of treatment. Based on recently published randomized data, CAR-T therapy (axicabtagene ciloleucel and lisocabtagene maraleucel) also has been approved as a second line of treatment for patients who are primary refractory or relapse within 12 months of first-line therapy. Despite the proven efficacy in treating r/r DLBCL with CD19-directed CAR-T therapy, several barriers may prevent eligible patients from receiving treatment. Barriers to CAR-T therapy include cost of therapy, patient hesitancy, required travel to academic treatment centers, nonreferrals, poor understanding of CAR-T therapy, lack of caregiver support, knowledge of available resources, and timely patient selection by referring oncologists. In this review, we provide an overview of the FDA-approved CD19-directed CAR-T cell therapies (tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, and lisocabtagene maraleucel) from pivotal clinical trials and supporting real-world evidence from retrospective studies. In both clinical trials and real-world settings, CAR-T therapy has been shown to be safe and efficacious for treating patients with r/r DLBCL: however, several barriers prevent eligible patients from accessing these therapies. Barriers to referrals for CAR-T therapy are described, along with recommendations to improve collaboration between community oncologists and physicians from CAR-T therapy treatment centers and subsequent long-term care of patients in community treatment centers.

Acute benzodiazepine toxicity exacerbated by concomitant oral olanzapine.

Improvements in antiemetic therapy constitute a major advance in oncology. A recent poll of the oncology community by the American Society of Clinical Oncology ranked it as one of the top 5 advances in cancer in the last 50 years. Emetogenicity of chemotherapy is defined by risk of emesis in the patient given no antiemetics; high-risk regimens cause nausea and vomiting in >90% of patients, moderate risk in 30%-90%, and low risk in <30%. This risk profile serves as the basis for empiric antiemetic prophylaxis and offers alternatives to refractory patients. Modern antiemetic prophylaxis is extremely effective for high-risk chemotherapy, reducing the risk for breakthrough nausea and vomiting to 0%-13% in the acute setting (<24 hours from receipt of chemotherapy) and to 25%-30% in the delayed setting (24-72 hours from receipt of chemotherapy).

Reducing the Time From Diagnosis to Treatment of Patients With Stage II/III Rectal Cancer at a Large Public Hospital.

Curative-intent therapy for stage II/III rectal cancer is necessarily complex. Current guidelines by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend preoperative concurrent chemoradiation followed by resection and additional adjuvant chemotherapy. We used standard quality improvement methodology to implement a cost-effective intervention that reduced the time from diagnosis to treatment of patients with stage II/III rectal cancer by approximately 30% in a large public hospital in Houston, Texas. Implementation of the program resulted in a reduction in time from pathologic diagnosis to treatment of 29% overall, from 62 to 44 days. These gains were cost neutral and resulted from improvements in scheduling and coordination of care alone. Our results suggest that: (1) quality improvement methodology can be successfully applied to multidisciplinary cancer care, (2) effective interventions can be cost neutral, and (3) effective strategies can overcome complexities such as having multiple sites of care, high staff turnover, and resource limitations.

A cost comparison of alternative regimens for treatment-refractory partial seizure disorder: an econometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Partial seizure disorder is typically treated by monotherapy with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). However, when the condition is refractory to the initial treatment regimen, patients may be switched to monotherapy with another AED or to combination therapy with the initial AED plus a second AED. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the economic costs associated with treatment-refractory partial seizure disorder and to compare the costs of 2 alternative approaches: a switch to oxcarbazepine (OXC) monotherapy or the addition to the regimen of another AED (AED add-on). METHODS: Adult patients with a diagnosis of partial seizure disorder who received initial AED monotherapy between January 1, 2000, and March 31, 2003, were identified from the PharMetrics Patient-Centric Database, a health plan administrative claims database. The medical and pharmacy history of these patients was analyzed from 6 months before a change to either OXC monotherapy or AED add-on therapy through 12 months after the change in treatment. Total health care resource utilization and the associated costs were compared within each cohort before and after the change, as well as between cohorts, with statistical differences tested using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Multivariate econometric analyses were performed to examine the impact of age, sex, geographic location, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and the presence of specific comorbidities. RESULTS: Demographic and clinical characteristics 102 were similar between the OXC monotherapy cohort (n = 259) and the AED add-on cohort (n = 795). Annual direct treatment costs increased in both groups in the period after the failure of initial monotherapy, increasing from 10,462 US dollars to 11,360 US dollars in the OXC cohort and from 10,137 US dollars to 12,201 US dollars in the AED add on cohort (P < 0.01). Increased pharmacy costs were the primary driver behind cost increases in both cohorts. Patients in the AED add-on cohort were significantly more likely to have an emergency department visit during the period after the failure of initial monotherapy compared with the OXC monotherapy cohort (odds ratio = 1.52; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite limitations, the results of retrospective analysis of claims data suggest that the care of patients with treatment-refractory partial seizure disorder is costly and may vary significantly based on the pattern of care.

Effect of comorbidities on medical care use and cost among refractory patients with partial seizure disorder.

PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to assess the effect of comorbidities on medical care use and costs among patients with partial seizure disorder who are also refractory to initial antiepileptic drug (AED) monotherapy. METHODS: Retrospective data from the PharMetrics managed care claims database were collected for adult patients treated with AED monotherapy between January 1, 2000 and March 31, 2002. The associations of comorbidity, specifically the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and incidence of specific comorbid conditions, with total costs and with hospitalization were analyzed via econometric analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-nine patients were identified and analyzed. The odds of hospitalization were 3.7 times greater among patients with a CCI1, than for patients without comorbidities (OR=3.7, 95% CI=1.7-7.9), while treatment costs for all medical care were 136% higher (P<0.05). Depression had the largest marginal effect on costs and on the likelihood of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: For patients refractory to initial AED monotherapy, the presence of comorbidities, especially depression, is associated with a substantial increase in medical care use and costs.