Central venous access devices for the delivery of systemic anticancer therapy: an economic evaluation

Objectives: Patients undergoing long-term anti-cancer therapy typically require one of three venous access devices (VADs): HICK, PICC, or PORT. Recent evidence has shown PORT is safer and improves patient satisfaction. However, PORT did not show improvement in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and was more expensive. Decisions regarding cost-effectiveness in the UK are typically informed by a cost-per-QALY metric. However, this approach is limited in its ability to capture the full range of relevant outcomes, especially in the context of medical devices. This study assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of HICK, PICC and PORT in routine clinical practice. Methods: Cost-consequence analysis to determine the trade-offs between the following outcomes: complication, infection, non-infection, chemotherapy interruption, unplanned device removals, health utilities, device insertion cost, follow-up cost, and total cost, using data from the CAVA clinical trial. We conducted Value of Implementation analysis of a PORT service. Results: PORT was superior in terms of overall complication rate, compared with both HICK (IRR: 0.422 (95% CI: 0.286 to 0.622)) and PICC (IRR: 0.295 (95% CI: 0.189 to 0.458)) and less likely to lead to an unplanned device removal. There was no difference in chemotherapy interruption or health utilities. Total cost with device in situ was lower on PORT, compared with HICK (£-98.86 (95% CI: -189.20 to -8.53)) and comparable with PICC -£48.57 (95% CI: -164.99 to 67.86)). Value of Implementation analysis found that PORT was likely to be considered cost-effective within the NHS. Conclusion: Decision makers should consider including PORT within the suite of VADs available within in the NHS

In-vivo T-cell depleted reduced-intensity conditioned allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in first remission: results from the prospective, single-arm evaluation of the UKALL14 trial.

BACKGROUND: The outcome of chemotherapy in patients older than 40 years with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is poor and myeloablative allogeneic haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) has a high transplant-related mortality (TRM) in this age cohort. The aim of this study was to assess the activity and safety of reduced-intensity conditioned allogeneic HSCT in this patient population. METHODS: This was a single-arm, prospective study within the UKALL14 trial done in 46 centres in the UK, which recruited patients to the transplantation substudy. Participants in UKALL14 had B-cell or T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, were aged 25-65 years (BCR-ABL1-negative) or 18-65 years (BCR-ABL1-positive), and for this subcohort had a fit, matched sibling donor or an 8 out of 8 allelic matched unrelated donor (HLA-A, HLA-B, HLA-C, and HLA-DR). On June 20, 2014, the protocol was amended to allow 7 out of 8 matched unrelated donors if the patient had high risk cytogenetics or was minimal residual disease (MRD)-positive after the second induction course. Patients were given fludarabine, melphalan, and alemtuzumab (FMA; intravenous fludarabine 30 mg/m2 on days -6 to -2, melphalan 140 mg/m2 on day -2, and alemtuzumab 30 mg on day -1 [sibling donor] and days -2 and -1 [unrelated donor]) before allogeneic HSCT (aged ≥41 years patient pathway). Donor lymphocyte infusions were given from 6 months for mixed chimerism or MRD. The primary endpoint was event-free survival and secondary and transplantation-specific endpoints included overall survival, relapse incidence, TRM, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01085617. FINDINGS: From Feb 22, 2011, to July 26, 2018, 249 patients (236 aged ≥41 years and 13 younger than 41 years) considered unfit for a myeloablative allograft received an FMA reduced-intensity conditioned HSCT. 138 (55%) patients were male and 111 (45%) were female. 88 (35%) participants received transplantations from a sibling donor and 160 (64%) received transplantations from unrelated donors. 211 (85%) participants had B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. High-risk cytogenetics were present in 43 (22%) and another 63 (25%) participants were BCR-ABL1-positive. At median follow-up of 49 months (IQR 36-70), 4-year event-free survival was 46·8% (95% CI 40·1-53·2) and 4-year overall survival was 54·8% (48·0-61·2). 4-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 33·6% (27·9-40·2) and 4-year TRM was 19·6% (15·1-25·3). 27 (56%) of 48 patients with TRM had infection as the named cause of death. Seven (15%) of 48 patients had fungal infections, 13 (27%) patients had bacterial infections (six gram-negative), and 11 (23%) had viral infections (three cytomegalovirus and two Epstein-Barr virus). Acute GVHD grade 2-4 occurred in 29 (12%) of 247 patients and grade 3-4 occurred in 12 (5%) patients. Chronic GVHD incidence was 84 (37%) of 228 patients (50 [22%] had extensive chronic GVHD). 49 (30%) of 162 patients had detectable end-of-induction MRD, which portended worse outcomes with event-free survival (HR 2·40 [95% CI 1·46-3·93]) and time-to-relapse (HR 2·41 [1·29-4·48]). INTERPRETATION: FMA reduced-intensity conditioned allogeneic HSCT in older patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in first complete remission provided good disease control with moderate GVHD, resulting in better-than-expected event-free survival and overall survival in this high-risk population. Strategies to reduce infection-related TRM will further improve outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK

Predicting COVID-19 infection risk in people who are immunocompromised by antibody testing.

People with blood cancers have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease despite booster vaccine doses.1 This group, like other disease groups at increased risk of severe COVID-19, includes individuals with highly heterogeneous immune responses to vaccination.2 Although vaccine response studies and population studies identify similar diseases and treatments associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19, a direct correlation between antibody levels after vaccination and infection risk has been difficult to define. Identification of a laboratory correlate of infection risk would allow doctors and policy makers to target additional COVID-19 treatment or prophylactic efforts to people who are most in need

Prognostic impact of chromosomal abnormalities and copy number alterations in adult B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a UKALL14 study

Chromosomal abnormalities are established prognostic markers in adult ALL. We assessed the prognostic impact of established chromosomal abnormalities and key copy number alterations (CNA) among 652 patients with B-cell precursor ALL treated on a modern MRD driven protocol. Patients with KMT2A-AFF1, complex karyotype (CK) and low hypodiploidy/near-triploidy (HoTr) had high relapse rates 50%, 60% & 53% and correspondingly poor survival. Patients with BCR-ABL1 had an outcome similar to other patients. JAK-STAT abnormalities (CRLF2, JAK2) occurred in 6% patients and were associated with a high relapse rate (56%). Patients with ABL-class fusions were rare (1%). A small group of patients with ZNF384 fusions (n = 12) had very good survival. CNA affecting IKZF1, CDKN2A/B, PAX5, BTG1, ETV6, EBF1, RB1 and PAR1 were assessed in 436 patients. None of the individual deletions or profiles were associated with survival, either in the cohort overall or within key subgroups. Collectively these data indicate that primary genetic abnormalities are stronger prognostic markers than secondary deletions. We propose a revised UKALL genetic risk classification based on key established chromosomal abnormalities: (1) very high risk: CK, HoTr or JAK-STAT abnormalities; (2) high risk: KMT2A fusions; (3) Tyrosine kinase activating: BCR-ABL1 and ABL-class fusions; (4) standard risk: all other patients

Long-term outcomes from the Phase II L-MIND study of tafasitamab (MOR208) plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Tafasitamab (MOR208), an Fc-modified, humanized, anti-CD19 monoclonal antibody, combined with the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide was clinically active with a good tolerability profile in the open-label, single-arm, phase II L-MIND study of patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) ineligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. To assess long-term outcomes, we report an updated analysis with ≥35 months' follow-up. Patients were aged >18 years, had received one to three prior systemic therapies (including ≥1 CD20-targeting regimen) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2. Patients received 28-day cycles of tafasitamab (12 mg/kg intravenously), once weekly during cycles 1-3, then every 2 weeks during cycles 4-12. Lenalidomide (25 mg orally) was administered on days 1-21 of cycles 1-12. After cycle 12, progression-free patients received tafasitamab every 2 weeks until disease progression. The primary endpoint was best objective response rate. After ≥35 months' follow-up (data cut-off: October 30, 2020), the objective response rate was 57.5% (n=46/80), including a complete response in 40.0% of patients (n=32/80) and a partial response in 17.5% of patients (n=14/80). The median duration of response was 43.9 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 26.1-not reached), the median overall survival was 33.5 months (95% CI: 18.3-not reached) and the median progression-free survival was 11.6 months (95% CI: 6.3-45.7). There were no unexpected toxicities. Subgroup analyses revealed consistent long-term efficacy results across most subgroups of patients. This extended follow-up of L-MIND confirms the long duration of response, meaningful overall survival, and well-defined safety profile of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide followed by tafasitamab monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02399085

A Phase I trial of talazoparib in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies

Aim: The objective of this study was to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and anti-leukemic activity of talazoparib. Patients & methods: This Phase I, two-cohort, dose-escalation trial evaluated talazoparib monotherapy in advanced hematologic malignancies (cohort 1: acute myeloid leukemia/myelodysplastic syndrome; cohort 2: chronic lymphocytic leukemia/mantle cell lymphoma). Results: Thirty-three (cohort 1: n = 25; cohort 2: n = 8) patients received talazoparib (0.1-2.0 mg once daily). The MTD was exceeded at 2.0 mg/day in cohort 1 and at 0.9 mg/day in cohort 2. Grade ≥3 adverse events were primarily hematologic. Eighteen (54.5%) patients reported stable disease. Conclusion: Talazoparib is relatively well tolerated in hematologic malignancies, with a similar MTD as in solid tumors, and shows preliminary anti leukemic activity.Clinical trial registration: NCT01399840 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Keywords: BRCA1/2 mutations; DNA damage response; hematologic malignancy; poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition; talazoparib

Venous access devices for the delivery of long-term chemotherapy: the CAVA three-arm RCT

Background: Venous access devices are used for patients receiving long-term chemotherapy. These include centrally inserted tunnelled catheters or Hickman-type devices (Hickman), peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and centrally inserted totally implantable venous access devices (PORTs). Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of these devices for the central delivery of chemotherapy. Design: An open, multicentre, randomised controlled trial to inform three comparisons: (1) peripherally inserted central catheters versus Hickman, (2) PORTs versus Hickman and (3) PORTs versus peripherally inserted central catheters. Pre-trial and post-trial qualitative research and economic evaluation were also conducted. Setting: This took place in 18 UK oncology centres. Participants: Adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) receiving chemotherapy (≥ 12 weeks) for either a solid or a haematological malignancy were randomised via minimisation. Interventions: Hickman, peripherally inserted central catheters and PORTs. Primary outcome: A composite of infection (laboratory confirmed, suspected catheter related and exit site infection), mechanical failure, venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, inability to aspirate blood and other complications in the intention-to-treat population. Results: Overall, 1061 participants were recruited to inform three comparisons. First, for the comparison of peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 212) with Hickman (n = 212), it could not be concluded that peripherally inserted central catheters were significantly non-inferior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.71). The use of peripherally inserted central catheters compared with Hickman was associated with a substantially lower cost (–£1553) and a small decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (–0.009). Second, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 253) with Hickman (n = 303), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to Hickman in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.77). PORTs were found to dominate Hickman with lower costs (–£45) and greater quality-adjusted life-years gained (0.004). This was alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 14%); the incremental cost per complication averted was £1.36. Third, for the comparison of PORTs (n = 147) with peripherally inserted central catheters (n = 199), PORTs were found to be statistically significantly superior to peripherally inserted central catheters in terms of complication rate (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.33 to 0.83). PORTs were associated with an incremental cost of £2706 when compared with peripherally inserted central catheters and a decrement in quality-adjusted life-years gained (–0.018) PORTs are dominated by peripherally inserted central catheters: alongside a lower complications rate (difference of 15%), the incremental cost per complication averted was £104. The qualitative work showed that attitudes towards all three devices were positive, with patients viewing their central venous access device as part of their treatment and recovery. PORTs were perceived to offer unique psychological benefits, including a greater sense of freedom and less intrusion in the context of personal relationships. The main limitation was the lack of adequate power (54%) in the non-inferiority comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and Hickman. Conclusions: In the delivery of long-term chemotherapy, peripherally inserted central catheters should be considered a cost-effective option when compared with Hickman. There were significant clinical benefits when comparing PORTs with Hickman and with peripherally inserted central catheters. The health economic benefits were less clear from the perspective of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained. However, dependent on the willingness to pay, PORTs may be considered to be cost-effective from the perspective of complications averted. Future work: The deliverability of a PORTs service merits further study to understand the barriers to and methods of improving the service. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN44504648. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NHIR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Addition of four doses of rituximab to standard induction chemotherapy in adult patients with precursor B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (UKALL14): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Treatment for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia requires improvement. UKALL14 was a UK National Cancer Research Institute Adult ALL group study that aimed to determine the benefit of adding the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, rituximab, to the therapy of adults with de novo B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, phase 3, randomised controlled trial done in all UK National Health Service Centres treating patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (65 centres). Patients were aged 25-65 years with de-novo BCR-ABL1-negative acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Patients with de-novo BCR-ABL1-positive acute lymphoblastic leukaemia were eligible if they were aged 19-65 years. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to standard-of-care induction therapy or standard-of-care induction therapy plus four doses of intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m2 on days 3, 10, 17, and 24). Randomisation used minimisation and was stratified by sex, age, and white blood cell count. No masking was used for patients, clinicians, or staff (including the trial statistician), although the central laboratory analysing minimal residual disease and CD20 was masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who started trial treatment. This study is registered with ClincialTrials.gov, NCT01085617. FINDINGS: Between April 19, 2012, and July 10, 2017, 586 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=292) or standard of care plus rituximab (n=294). Nine patients were excluded from the final analysis due to misdiagnosis (standard of care n=4, standard of care plus rituximab n=5). In the standard-of-care group, median age was 45 years (IQR 22-65), 159 (55%) of 292 participants were male, 128 (44%) were female, one (<1%) was intersex, and 143 (59%) of 244 participants had high-risk cytogenetics. In the standard-of-care plus rituximab group, median age was 46 years (IQR 23-65), 159 (55%) of 294 participants were male, 130 (45%) were female, and 140 (60%) of 235 participants had high-risk cytogenetics. After a median follow-up of 53·7 months (IQR 40·3-70·4), 3-year event-free survival was 43·7% (95% CI 37·8-49·5) for standard of care versus 51·4% (45·4-57·1) for standard of care plus rituximab (hazard ratio [HR] 0·85 [95% CI 0·69-1·06]; p=0·14). The most common adverse events were infections and cytopenias, with no difference between the groups in the rates of adverse events. There were 11 (4%) fatal (grade 5) events in induction phases 1 and 2 in the standard-of-care group and 13 (5%) events in the standard-of-care plus rituximab group). 3-year non-relapse mortality was 23·7% (95% CI 19·0-29·4) in the standard-of-care group versus 20·6% (16·2-25·9) in the standard-of-care plus rituximab group (HR 0·88 [95% CI 0·62-1·26]; p=0·49). INTERPRETATION: Standard of care plus four doses of rituximab did not significantly improve event-free survival over standard of care. Rituximab is beneficial in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia but four doses during induction is likely to be insufficient. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Blood Cancer UK