Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE:SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) is a systemic infection. Patients with cancer are immunocompromised and may be vulnerable to COVID-related morbidity and mortality. The objectives of this study were to determine if patients with cancer have worse outcomes compared with patients without cancer and to identify demographic and clinical predictors of morbidity and mortality among patients with cancer. METHODS:We used data from adult patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were admitted to two New York-Presbyterian hospitals between March 3 and May 15, 2020. Patients with cancer were matched 1:4 to controls without cancer in terms of age, sex, and number of comorbidities. Using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test, we compared morbidity (intensive care unit admission and intubation) and mortality outcomes between patients with cancer and controls. Among those with cancer, we identified demographic and clinical predictors of worse outcomes using Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS:= .894) between patients with and without cancer. CONCLUSION:We observed that patients with COVID-19 and cancer had similar outcomes compared with matched patients without cancer. This finding suggests that a diagnosis of active cancer alone and recent anticancer therapy do not predict worse COVID-19 outcomes and therefore, recommendations to limit cancer-directed therapy must be considered carefully in relation to cancer-specific outcomes and death.

BACKGROUND:Population-based studies previously showed an improvement in overall survival (OS) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who received chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab. However, there is limited data (especially at the population level) that show a similar trend in OS improvement, in the most recent time period. We hypothesized that survival for DLBCL patients diagnosed in the United States has continued to improve in recent years and intended to measure outcome improvements. METHODS:Using the SEER-18 registries, we compared the incidence and relative survival rates (RSRs) of DLBCL patients between 2002-2007 and 2008-2013 (availability of novel agents, broader use of autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation and improvement in supportive care). Multivariable Cox regression models were used to assess associations between the year of diagnosis and OS while controlling for age, gender, stage, and ethnicity. RESULTS:There were a total of 53 439 patients with DLBCL who were diagnosed between 2002 and 2013. Of these, 25 810 were diagnosed during time period-1 and 27 629 diagnosed during time period-2. There was a slight decline in incidence of DLBCL (time period-1 vs time period-2), 7.75 (95% CI = 7.66-7.84) vs 7.43 (95% CI = 7.34-7.52) cases per 100 000 persons, respectively (P < .0001). Overall, there was a modest improvement in DLBCL RSRs, with 5-year RSR improving from 61% (time period-1) to 64% (time period-2) and the improvement was noted across all subsets of patients. On multivariable analysis, patients diagnosed in time period-2 had lower mortality relative to time period-1 (HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.85-0.89). CONCLUSIONS:Our study shows an improvement in the outcomes of DLBCL patients beyond the introduction of rituximab, although the magnitude of improvement is small. It will be interesting to see the impact of chimeric antigen receptor-T cell therapy translating to population-level survival in the next 5 years.

Patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) who relapse after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) historically have had poor outcomes. We hypothesized that, post-auto-HCT relapse, overall survival (PR-OS) has improved in recent years as a result of more widespread use of novel therapies and allogeneic HCT (allo-HCT). We conducted a retrospective study in 4 US academic centers, evaluating 215 patients who underwent auto-HCT from 2005 to 2016 and relapsed thereafter. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts based on timing of auto-HCT, 2005 through 2010 (cohort 1; n = 118) and 2011 to 2016 (cohort 2; n = 97), to compare differences in clinical outcomes. The median age and disease status at auto-HCT were similar in cohorts 1 and 2. The proportions of patients who received brentuximab vedotin (Bv; 55% vs 69%; P = .07), checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs; 3% vs 36%; P ≤ .001), and allogeneic-HCT (22% vs 35%, P = .03) were significantly different between cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. At the 5-year follow-up after auto relapse, 32% and 50% of patients were alive in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively (P = .01). In multivariate analysis for PR-OS, cohort 1 vs 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-4.60; P = .01), age at auto-HCT (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.18-1.87; P ≤ .001), and time to relapse from auto-HCT (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-74; P ≤ .0001), retained independent prognostic significance for PR-OS. Our study supports the hypothesis that survival of cHL patients after auto-HCT failure has significantly improved in recent years, most likely because of incorporation of novel therapies and more widespread use of allo-HCT.

Outcomes for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients relapsing after autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) have been historically poor. We studied outcomes of such patients using data from 4 transplantation centers. Eligibility criteria included adult patients (age ≥18 years) with DLBCL experiencing disease relapse after auto-HCT performed during 2006 to 2015. The time period was stratified into 2 eras (era 1, 2006-2010; era 2, 2011-2015). The primary end point was postrelapse overall survival (PR-OS). Secondary end points were factors prognostic of PR-OS. Of the 700 patients with DLBCL who underwent auto-HCT, 248 (35%) relapsed after auto-HCT. Median PR-OS of all relapsed DLBCL patients after auto-HCT (n = 228) was 9.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7-15). Median PR-OS was significantly better for patients in complete (17.8 months; 95% CI, 7.9-41.6) vs partial remission at auto-HCT (7.1 months; 95% CI, 5.4-11; P = .01), those undergoing auto-HCT >1 year (12.8 months; 95% CI, 7.6-24.9) vs ≤1 year after DLBCL diagnosis (6.3 months; 95% CI, 4.5-9.2; P = .01), and those with late (56.4 months; 95% CI, 23.7-∞) vs early relapse (5.9 months; 95% CI, 4.5-8.8; P < .0001). On multivariate analysis, although late relapse (hazard ratio [HR], 0.21; 95% CI, 0.13-0.34; P < .0001) was associated with significantly lower mortality, the risk of mortality increased with age (HR, 1.25 per decade; 95% CI, 1.06-1.48; P = .009). This is the largest study to date to evaluate outcomes of DLBCL patients relapsing after auto-HCT. Our study provides benchmarking for future trials of chimeric antigen receptor T cells and other promising agents evaluating PR-OS after auto-HCT.

BACKGROUND:Follicular lymphoma (FL) is a common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma with a wide spectrum of presentation. While grade 1/2 FL is considered low grade and grade 3B FL is approached as an aggressive lymphoma, the management of grade 3A FL remains controversial. PATIENTS AND METHODS:We performed a retrospective, multicenter analysis of patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced stage 3/4 grade 3A FL diagnosed between January 2006 and July 2016. Patients were stratified by frontline chemotherapy regimen: anthracycline based (ATC), bendamustine (BD), and cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (CVP). A total of 103 patients were identified from 6 contributing centers: 65 patients received ATC chemotherapy, 30 BD, and 8 CVP. The primary outcome was time to progression (TTP). Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, overall survival, complete response rates, large cell transformation, and impact of standardized maximum uptake value on positron emission tomography/computed tomography with outcomes. Patient characteristics were similar among the 3 treatment groups. RESULTS:For TTP at 24 months from initiation of treatment, 72% of ATC, 79% of BD, and 50% of CVP patients had not experienced disease progression (P = .01). Multivariate analysis demonstrated a TTP benefit for ATC compared to CVP (hazard ratio 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-8.25; P = .01) but no difference when compared to BD. Similar findings were seen with progression-free survival. While overall survival was similar among the 3 arms, there was a higher risk of large cell transformation following BD and CVP. Last, standardized maximum uptake value on positron emission tomography/computed tomography did not affect TTP when comparing BD- and ATC-treated patients. CONCLUSION:Although ATC was superior to CVP, clinical outcomes (TTP, progression-free survival, and overall survival) were similar compared to BD chemotherapy for patients with grade 3A FL.

Increasing evidence suggests that asymptomatic carriers are an important source of healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile infection. However, it is not known which test for the detection of C. difficile colonization is most sensitive in patients with haematological malignancies. We performed a prospective cohort study of 101 patients with haematological malignancies who had been admitted to the hospital for scheduled chemotherapy or haematopoietic cell transplantation. Each patient provided a formed stool sample. We compared the performance of five different commercially available assays, using toxigenic culture as the reference method. The prevalence of toxigenic C. difficile colonization as determined by toxigenic culture was 14/101 (14 %). The Cepheid Xpert PCR C. difficile/Epi was the most sensitive test for the detection of toxigenic C. difficile colonization, with 93 % sensitivity and 99 % negative predictive value. Our findings suggest that the Xpert PCR C. difficile/Epi could be used to rule out toxigenic C. difficile colonization in this population.