Search

In patients with follicular lymphoma, the prolonged clinical course consisting of multiple relapses is a fundamental challenge that requires clinicians to consider how to best balance treatment efficacy while minimizing toxicity and preserving quality of life. The treatment approaches and decisions regarding therapy are largely driven by the unique clinical features evident in each patient. The traditional treatment approaches for relapsed follicular lymphoma include chemoimmunotherapy regimens, targeted agents, radioimmunotherapy, and, occasionally, immunotherapy alone. The primary targeted agents used in the relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma setting are the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors idelalisib, copanlisib, and duvelisib. PI3K inhibitors can have a significant toxicity profile. Radioimmunotherapy remains an underutilized option. The newest agent that has gained regulatory approval in the treatment of follicular lymphoma is tazemetostat, a methyltransferase inhibitor that inhibits and reduces the activity of EZH2. In June 2020, tazemetostat was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma who have tumors that are positive for an

Celiac disease (CD) is underdiagnosed, and iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) is a common presentation of CD. No guidelines exist in the literature for screening for CD among those with IDA in the United States. We surveyed hematologists to deter- mine rates of CD screening in patients with IDA.A survey was e-mailed to members of the American Society of Hematology.There were 385 complete responses from 4551 e-mails. Most respondents were practicing clinicians (74%), clinical researchers (10%), or laboratory researchers (6%). Specialists in benign hematology accounted for 45% of respondents, oncologists accounted for 33%, and specialists in malignant hematology accounted for 22%. The most common practice types were university-affiliated hospital (43%), private clinic (29%), community hospital (12%), and Veterans Affairs or military hospital (9%). Only 8.6% believed all patients with IDA should be screened for CD. Respondents who had completed their fellowship within 5 years were more likely than more experienced clinicians to believe that all patients with IDA should receive CD screening (OR, 2.8; CI; 1.1-7.5; P=.04). Having a higher volume of IDA patients per month also increased the likelihood of testing (P=.01). In multivariate analysis, specialists in malignant hematology (OR, 3.2; CI, 1.1-9.5; P=.04) and oncologists (OR, 3.5; CI, 1.3-9.5; P=.02) were more likely than specialists in benign hematology to screen all patients for CD, as were those who saw predominately pediatric patients with IDA vs adult patients (OR, 16.9; CI, 3.0-97.0; P=.002).Practicing hematologists infrequently screen for CD in IDA. Physicians who have recently finished their fellowship and those who see a high volume of patients with IDA are more likely to screen for CD.