Neutropenia-associated outcomes in adults with acute myeloid leukemia receiving cytarabine consolidation chemotherapy with or without granulocyte colony-stimulating factor

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine whether granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) prophylaxis after consolidation with high- or intermediate-dose cytarabine (H/IDAC) for treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) reduces the frequency of neutropenia-associated complications.

DESIGN

Retrospective medical record review.

SETTING

Academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Seventy-eight patients aged 18 years or older in whom H/IDAC consolidation chemotherapy was initiated for consolidation of AML between November 2004 and November 2010.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patient demographic data, information on the hospitalization for consolidation, data on G-CSF use after H/IDAC chemotherapy, and details on any readmissions were collected. Patients were deemed to have received G-CSF prophylaxis if there was documentation of the intent for use of either filgrastim or pegfilgrastim. Outcome data also were collected, including dates of relapse or second induction treatment course, and death or last follow-up visit. We compared data based on patient receipt of G-CSF (G-CSF vs no G-CSF) after each chemotherapy cycle. We assessed differences in the duration of hospitalization, fever, intravenous antibiotic use, and neutropenia, as well as rate of documented infections, time to disease recurrence, and overall survival. Compared with no G-CSF, use of G-CSF after cycle 1 of H/IDAC significantly reduced the rate of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (p=0.039); however, no significant differences were noted for subsequent cycles. No significant differences were seen in duration of hospitalization, rate of documented infections, or time to treatment failure between groups. Overall survival was longer for patients who received G-CSF during their first cycle (p=0.018) and for those who received G-CSF during any of their cycles (p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

Use of G-CSF prophylaxis after cycle 1 of H/IDAC consolidation for AML appears to reduce the frequency of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia and to increase overall survival compared with no G-CSF use. Prospective, controlled studies are needed to support our findings.

Risk stratification and outreach to hematology/oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

Purpose

Cancer patients have many medical and psychosocial needs, which may increase during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to (1) risk-stratify hematology/oncology patients using general medicine and cancer-specific methods to identify those at high risk for acute care utilization, (2) measure the correlation between two risk stratification methods, and (3) perform a telephone-based needs assessment with intervention for high-risk patients.

Methods

Patients were risk-stratified using a general medical health composite score (HCS) and a cancer-specific risk (CSR) stratification based on disease and treatment characteristics. The correlation between HCS and CSR was measured using Spearman’s correlation. A multi-disciplinary team developed a focused needs assessment script with recommended interventions for patients categorized as high-risk by either method. The number of patient needs identified and referrals for services made in the first month of outreach are reported.

Results

A total of 1697 patients were risk-stratified, with 17% high-risk using HCS and 22% high-risk using CSR. Correlation between HCS and CSR was modest (ρ = 0.41). During the first month of the pilot, 286 patients were called for outreach with 245 contacted (86%). Commonly identified needs were financial difficulties (17%), uncontrolled symptoms (15%), and interest in advance care planning (13%), resulting in referral for supportive services for 33% of patients.

Conclusion

There is a high burden of unmet medical and psychosocial needs in hematology/oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A telephone-based outreach program results in the identification of and intervention for these needs; however, additional cancer-specific risk models are needed to improve targeting to high-risk patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00520-020-05744-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multicenter evaluation of the addition of eltrombopag to immunosuppressive therapy for adults with severe aplastic anemia

Eltrombopag has been shown to improve response rates when added to standard therapy in adults with severe aplastic anemia in controlled trial settings. However, outcomes in real-world populations have mostly been examined in small retrospective studies. This robust, multicenter, retrospective cohort study across six academic health systems compared outcomes in patients who received immunosuppressive therapy with or without eltrombopag. The study included 82 patients who received front-line therapy from January 2014 to August 2021. Overall response rates at 6 months did not differ significantly for patients receiving eltrombopag versus immunosuppressive therapy alone (58% v. 65%, p = 0.56). However, complete response rates at 6 and 12 months were over two times higher in the eltrombopag arm (29% v. 12%, p = 0.06 and 48% v. 18%, p = 0.005). Rates of hepatotoxicity were similar across both arms. Eltrombopag addition did not impact overall survival (median not reached in either arm at 2 years, p = 0.86) or disease-free survival (median not reached v. 13.3 months at 2 years, p = 0.20). Eltrombopag may not produce as large of a benefit in real-world settings compared to controlled trial settings but may offer patients deeper responses with similar rates of toxicity to immunosuppressive therapy alone.