Current approach to relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children

Management of B-cell lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia: expert opinion from an Indian panel via Delphi consensus method

Introduction

Currently, there are no guidelines for the management of B-cell lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) from an Indian perspective. The diagnostic workup, monitoring, and treatment of B-ALL vary among different physicians and institutes.

Objective

To develop evidence-based practical consensus recommendations for the management of B-ALL in Indian settings.

Methods

Modified Delphi consensus methodology was considered to arrive at a consensus. An expert scientific committee of 15 experts from India constituted the panel. Clinically relevant questions belonging to three major domains were drafted for presentation and discussion: (i) diagnosis and risk assignment; (ii) frontline treatment; and (iii) choice of therapy (optimal vs. real-world practice) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) settings. The questionnaire was shared with the panel members through an online survey platform. The level of consensus was categorized into high (≥ 80%), moderate (60%-79%), and no consensus (< 60%). The process involved 2 rounds of discussion and 3 rounds of Delphi survey. The questions that received near or no consensus were discussed during virtual meetings (Delphi rounds 1 and 2). The final draft of the consensus was emailed to the panel for final review.

Results

Experts recommended morphologic assessment of peripheral blood or bone marrow, flow cytometric immunophenotyping, and conventional cytogenetic analysis in the initial diagnostic workup. Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster (BFM)-based protocol is the preferred frontline therapy in pediatric and adolescent and young adult patients with B-ALL. BFM/German Multicenter Study Group for Adult Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia-based regimen is suggested in adult patients with B-ALL. Immunotherapy (blinatumomab or inotuzumab ozogamicin) followed by allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is the optimal choice of therapy that would yield the best outcomes if offered in the first salvage in patients with R/R B-ALL. In patients with financial constraints or prior allo-HCT (real-world practice) at first relapse, standard-intensive chemotherapy followed by allo-HCT may be considered. For subsequent relapses, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy or palliative care was suggested as the optimal choice of therapy.

Conclusion

This expert consensus will offer guidance to oncologists/clinicians on the management of B-ALL in Indian settings.

The New Therapeutic Strategies in Pediatric T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia is a genetically heterogeneous cancer that accounts for 10–15% of T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) cases. The T-ALL event-free survival rate (EFS) is 85%. The evaluation of structural and numerical chromosomal changes is important for a comprehensive biological characterization of T-ALL, but there are currently no genetic prognostic markers. Despite chemotherapy regimens, steroids, and allogeneic transplantation, relapse is the main problem in children with T-ALL. Due to the development of high-throughput molecular methods, the ability to define subgroups of T-ALL has significantly improved in the last few years. The profiling of the gene expression of T-ALL has led to the identification of T-ALL subgroups, and it is important in determining prognostic factors and choosing an appropriate treatment. Novel therapies targeting molecular aberrations offer promise in achieving better first remission with the hope of preventing relapse. The employment of precisely targeted therapeutic approaches is expected to improve the cure of the disease and quality of life of patients. These include therapies that inhibit Notch1 activation (bortezomib), JAK inhibitors in ETP-ALL (ruxolitinib), BCL inhibitors (venetoclax), and anti-CD38 therapy (daratumumab). Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) is under investigation, but it requires further development and trials. Nelarabine-based regimens remain the standard for treating the relapse of T-ALL.

Patient with Down syndrome and relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia with sustained remission despite only partial R3 chemotherapy

DS-ALL has a higher rate of relapse and treatment-related mortality. The newer immunotherapies are potentially better options. Relapsed ALL with positive MRD has a poor prognosis. Transient long-term remission after ALL relapse due to partial chemotherapy combined severe infection is rare.

Copy Number Alterations are Associated with the Risk of Very Early Relapse in Pediatric B-lineage Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Nested Case-control MIGICCL Study

BACKGROUND

Refining risk stratification to avoid very early relapses (VER) in Mexican patients with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) could lead to better survival rates in our population.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between the United Kingdom ALL (UKALL)-CNA classifier and VER risk in Mexican patients with childhood B-ALL.

METHODS

A nested case-control study of 25 cases with VER and 38 frequency-matched controls without relapse was conducted within the MIGICCL study cohort. They were grouped into the categories of the UKALL-CNA risk classifier (good [reference], intermediate and poor), according to the results obtained by multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification. Overall and disease-free survival (DFS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The CDKN2A/B genes were most frequently deleted in the group with relapse. According to UKALL-CNA classifier, 33 (52.4%) patients were classified as good, 21 (33.3%) intermediate and 9 (14.3%) poor-risk B-ALL. The intermediate and poor risk groups were associated with an increased risk of VER (HR = 4.94, 95% CI = 1.87-13.07 and HR = 7.42, 95% CI = 2.37-23.26, respectively) in comparison to the good-risk patients. After adjusting by NCI risk classification and chemotherapy scheme in a multivariate model, the risks remained significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data support the clinical utility of profiling CNAs to potentially refine current risk stratification strategies of patients with B-ALL.

Effectiveness and Safety of Clofarabine Monotherapy or Combination Treatment in Relapsed/Refractory Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Pragmatic, Non-interventional Study in Korea

Purpose

Effectiveness and safety of clofarabine (one of the treatment mainstays in pediatric patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia [ALL]) was assessed in Korean pediatric patients with ALL to facilitate conditional coverage with evidence development.

Materials and Methods

In this multicenter, prospective, observational study, patients receiving clofarabine as mono/combination therapy were followed up every 4–6 weeks for 6 months or until hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Response rates, survival outcomes, and adverse events were assessed.

Results

Sixty patients (2–26 years old; 65% B-cell ALL, received prior ≥ 2 regimen, 68.3% refractory to previous regimen) were enrolled and treated with at least one dose of clofarabine; of whom 26 (43.3%) completed 6 months of follow-up after the last dose of clofarabine. Fifty-eight patients (96.7%) received clofarabine combination therapy. Overall remission rate (complete remission [CR] or CR without platelet recovery [CRp]) was 45.0% (27/60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 32.4 to 57.6) and the overall response rate (CR, CRp, or partial remission [PR]) was 46.7% (28/60; 95% CI, 34.0 to 59.3), with 11 (18.3%), 16 (26.7%), and one (1.7%) patients achieving CR, CRp, and PR, respectively. The median time to remission was 5.1 weeks (95% CI, 4.7 to 6.1). Median duration of remission was 16.6 weeks (range, 2.0 to 167.6 weeks). Sixteen patients (26.7%) proceeded to HSCT. There were 24 deaths; 14 due to treatment-emergent adverse events.

Conclusion

Remission with clofarabine was observed in approximately half of the study patients who had overall expected safety profile; however, there was no favorable long-term survival outcome in this study.

R and Shiny for Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Why and When? A Hypothetical Case Study

INTRODUCTION

Health economics models are typically built in Microsoft Excel^® owing to its wide familiarity, accessibility and perceived transparency. However, given the increasingly rapid and analytically complex decision-making needs of both the pharmaceutical industry and the field of health economics and outcomes research (HEOR), the demands of cost-effectiveness analyses may be better met by the programming language R.

OBJECTIVE

This case study provides an explicit comparison between Excel and R for contemporary cost-effectiveness analysis.

METHODS

We constructed duplicate cost-effectiveness models using Excel and R (with a user interface built using the Shiny package) to address a hypothetical case study typical of contemporary health technology assessment.

RESULTS

We compared R and Excel versions of the same model design to determine the advantages and limitations of the modelling platforms in terms of (i) analytical capability, (ii) data safety, (iii) building considerations, (iv) usability for technical and non-technical users and (v) model adaptability.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this explicit comparison are used to produce recommendations for when R might be more suitable than Excel in contemporary cost-effectiveness analyses. We conclude that selection of appropriate modelling software needs to consider case-by-case modelling requirements, particularly (i) intended audience, (ii) complexity of analysis, (iii) nature and frequency of updates and (iv) anticipated model run time.

The assessment and appraisal of regenerative medicines and cell therapy products: an exploration of methods for review, economic evaluation and appraisal

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) commissioned a 'mock technology appraisal' to assess whether changes to its methods and processes are needed. This report presents the findings of independent research commissioned to inform this appraisal and the deliberations of a panel convened by NICE to evaluate the mock appraisal.

METHODS

Our research included reviews to identify issues, analysis methods and conceptual differences and the relevance of alternative decision frameworks, alongside the development of an exemplar case study of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for treating acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

RESULTS

An assessment of previous evaluations of regenerative medicines found that, although there were a number of evidential challenges, none was unique to regenerative medicines or was beyond the scope of existing methods used to conceptualise decision uncertainty. Regarding the clinical evidence for regenerative medicines, the issues were those associated with a limited evidence base but were not unique to regenerative medicines: small non-randomised studies, high variation in response and the intervention subject to continuing development. The relative treatment effects generated from single-arm trials are likely to be optimistic unless it is certain that the historical data have accurately estimated the efficacy of the control agent. Pivotal trials may use surrogate end points, which, on average, overestimate treatment effects. To reduce overall uncertainty, multivariate meta-analysis of all available data should be considered. Incorporating indirectly relevant but more reliable (more mature) data into the analysis can also be considered; such data may become available as a result of the evolving regulatory pathways being developed by the European Medicines Agency. For the exemplar case of CAR T-cell therapy, target product profiles (TPPs) were developed, which considered the 'curative' and 'bridging to stem-cell transplantation' treatment approaches separately. Within each TPP, three 'hypothetical' evidence sets (minimum, intermediate and mature) were generated to simulate the impact of alternative levels of precision and maturity in the clinical evidence. Subsequent assessments of cost-effectiveness were undertaken, employing the existing NICE reference case alongside additional analyses suggested within alternative frameworks. The additional exploratory analyses were undertaken to demonstrate how assessments of cost-effectiveness and uncertainty could be impacted by alternative managed entry agreements (MEAs), including price discounts, performance-related schemes and technology leasing. The panel deliberated on the range of TPPs, evidence sets and MEAs, commenting on the likely recommendations for each scenario. The panel discussed the challenges associated with the exemplar and regenerative medicines more broadly, focusing on the need for a robust quantification of the level of uncertainty in the cost-effective estimates and the potential value of MEAs in limiting the exposure of the NHS to high upfront costs and loss associated with a wrong decision.

CONCLUSIONS

It is to be expected that there will be a significant level of uncertainty in determining the clinical effectiveness of regenerative medicines and their long-term costs and benefits, but the existing methods available to estimate the implications of this uncertainty are sufficient. The use of risk sharing and MEAs between the NHS and manufacturers of regenerative medicines should be investigated further.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.