Search

Mortality rates for COVID-19 have declined over time in the general population, but data in patients with hematologic malignancies are contradictory. We identified independent prognostic factors for COVID-19 severity and survival in unvaccinated patients with hematologic malignancies, compared mortality rates over time and versus non-cancer inpatients, and investigated post COVID-19 condition. Data were analyzed from 1166 consecutive, eligible patients with hematologic malignancies from the population-based HEMATO-MADRID registry, Spain, with COVID-19 prior to vaccination roll-out, stratified into early (February–June 2020; n = 769 (66%)) and later (July 2020–February 2021; n = 397 (34%)) cohorts. Propensity-score matched non-cancer patients were identified from the SEMI-COVID registry. A lower proportion of patients were hospitalized in the later waves (54.2%) compared to the earlier (88.6%), OR 0.15, 95%CI 0.11–0.20. The proportion of hospitalized patients admitted to the ICU was higher in the later cohort (103/215, 47.9%) compared with the early cohort (170/681, 25.0%, 2.77; 2.01–3.82). The reduced 30-day mortality between early and later cohorts of non-cancer inpatients (29.6% vs. 12.6%, OR 0.34; 0.22–0.53) was not paralleled in inpatients with hematologic malignancies (32.3% vs. 34.8%, OR 1.12; 0.81–1.5). Among evaluable patients, 27.3% had post COVID-19 condition. These findings will help inform evidence-based preventive and therapeutic strategies for patients with hematologic malignancies and COVID-19 diagnosis., Fundación Madrileña de Hematología y Hemoterapia, Fundación Leucemia y Linfoma, Asociación Madrileña de Hematología y Hemoterapia, Depto. de Medicina, Fac. de Medicina, TRUE, pub

[Puropose]: The need for an individualized management of indolent clinical forms in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is increasingly recognized. We hypothesized that a tailored treatment with ibrutinib in combination with rituximab (IR) could obtain significant responses in these patients., [Methods]: This is a multicenter single-arm, open-label, phase II study with a two-stage design conducted in 12 Spanish GELTAMO sites (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02682641). Previously untreated MCL patients with indolent clinical forms defined by the following criteria were eligible: no disease-related symptoms, nonblastoid variants, Ki-67 < 30%, and largest tumor diameter ≤ 3 cm. Both leukemic non-nodal and nodal subtypes were recruited. Patients received ibrutinib 560 mg once daily and a total of eight doses of rituximab 375 mg/m2. Ibrutinib could be discontinued after 2 years in the case of sustained undetectable minimal residual disease (MRD). The primary end point was the complete response (CR) rate achieved after 12 cycles according to Lugano criteria., [Results]: Fifty patients with MCL (male 66%; median age 65 years) were enrolled. After 12 cycles of treatment, 42 (84%; 95% CI, 74 to 94) patients had an overall response, including 40 (80%; 95% CI, 69 to 91) with CR. Moreover, undetectable MRD in peripheral blood was achieved in 87% (95% CI, 77 to 97) of cases. At 2 years, 24 of 35 evaluable patients (69%) could discontinue ibrutinib because of undetectable MRD. Four patients had disease progression; three were non-nodal MCL and carried high genomic complexity and TP53 mutations at enrollment. No unexpected toxicity was seen except one patient with severe aplastic anemia., [Conclusion]: Frontline IR combination achieves a high rate of CRs and undetectable MRD in indolent clinical forms of MCL. Discontinuation seems appropriate in cases with undetectable MRD, except for TP53-mutated cases.

[Simple Summary] The use of azacitidine (AZA) and decitabine (DEC) have allowed more elderly acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients to be treated. However, scarcely any direct comparative data exist between both drugs. This study shows no significant differences in response rates or overall survival (OS) between upfront AZA and DEC treatment in a large retrospective with long-term follow-up cohort of AML patients. However, we identified for the first time the baseline characteristics of patients benefitting from AZA vs. DEC in terms of responses, 120-day mortality and OS. We also show differences in salvage treatment patterns and outcomes after failure to both hypomethylating agents in a real-life setting. Taken together, these findings could help to select the most appropriate hypomethylating agent in monotherapy., The hypomethylating agents, decitabine (DEC) and azacitidine (AZA), allowed more elderly acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients to be treated. However, there are little direct comparative data on AZA and DEC. This multicenter retrospective study compared the outcomes of AZA and DEC in terms of response and overall survival (OS). Potential predictors associated with response and OS were also evaluated. A total of 626 AML patients were included (487 treated with AZA and 139 with DEC). Response rates were similar in both groups: CR was 18% with AZA vs. 23% with DEC (p = 0.20), CR/CRi was 20.5% vs. 25% (p = 0.27) and ORR was 32% vs. 39.5% (p = 0.12), respectively. Patients with leukocytes < 10 × 109/L, bone marrow blasts < 50% and ECOG ≥ 2 had higher ORR with DEC than with AZA. OS was similar in both groups: 10.4 months (95% CI: 9.2–11.7) vs. 8.8 months (95% CI: 6.7–11.0, p = 0.455), for AZA and DEC, respectively. Age (≥80 years), leukocytes (≥ 10 × 109/L), platelet count (<20 × 109/L) and eGFR (≥45 mL/min/1.73 m2) were associated with higher OS with AZA compared to DEC. In conclusion, we found no differences in response and OS rates in AML patients treated with AZA or DEC.

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients have a 5% overall risk of central nervous system events (relapse or progression), which account for high morbidity and frequently fatal outcomes,1 and shortened overall survival of <6 months.2 Early diagnosis of central nervous system events is critical for successful treatment and improved prognosis. Identification of patients at risk of central nervous system disease is critical to accurately identify candidates for central nervous system prophylaxis vs. therapy. This report by the Spanish Lymphoma Group (GELTAMO) aims to provide useful guidelines and recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of central nervous system diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients with, or at risk of, leptomeningeal and/or brain parenchyma lymphoma relapse. A panel of lymphoma experts working on behalf of GELTAMO reviewed all data published on these topics available in PubMed up to May 2016. Recommendations were classified according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.6 A practical algorithm based on the proposed recommendations was then developed (Figure 1). Initial discussions among experts were held in May 2014, and final consensus was reached in June 2016. The final manuscript was reviewed by all authors and the Scientific Committee of GELTAMO.