Search

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia in adults in the United States and has seen the approval of several novel agents over the past decade. Similar to treatments for other hematologic and solid malignancies, these novel agents are costly. In the setting of finite financial resources in the healthcare system, the concept of cost-effectiveness analyses has been developed to compare the estimated costs and associated benefits expected with different interventions (eg, drugs, diagnostic tests, procedures). Although drug approvals in the United States are not based on budgetary considerations, cost-effectiveness analyses can inform health policy decisions, resource allocation, and societal debates. However, such analyses are only capturing parts of the costs and benefits to the healthcare system, payers, and consumers, and are based on modeling assumptions with inherent limitations. In addition, cost-effectiveness analyses for several of the novel agents approved for treatment of AML are limited and have reported conflicting results. This review uses cost-effectiveness analyses of azacitidine/venetoclax and liposomal cytarabine/daunorubicin as examples to review considerations and best practices when conducting and interpreting such studies. To ensure adequate interpretability of cost-effectiveness studies, transparency in the model inputs/assumptions, data sources, and funding is of great importance, as evidenced by the discrepant conclusions across studies. Furthermore, the perspective and the healthcare system from which a cost-effectiveness analysis is conducted are important to consider because practice patterns and drug prices between countries can be variable. However, with advances in health economic modeling techniques, adherence to best practices, and increasing public interest in these types of studies, cost-effectiveness analyses can become an important tool to inform various stakeholders in the healthcare system to allocate limited resources most efficiently.

Follicular lymphoma (FL) is traditionally considered treatable but incurable. In March 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) FL after ≥2 lines of therapy. Priced at $373 000, CAR T-cell therapy is potentially curative, and its cost-effectiveness compared with other modern R/R FL treatment strategies is unknown. We developed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of third-line CAR T-cell vs standard of care (SOC) therapies in adults with R/R FL. We estimated progression rates for patients receiving CAR T-cell and SOC therapies from the ZUMA-5 trial and the LEO CReWE study, respectively. We calculated costs, discounted life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAR T-cell vs SOC therapies with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. Our analysis was conducted from a US payer’s perspective over a lifetime horizon. In our base-case model, the cost of the CAR T-cell strategy was $731 682 compared with $458 490 for SOC therapies. However, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with incremental clinical benefit of 1.50 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of $182 127 per QALY. Our model was most sensitive to the utilities associated with CAR T-cell therapy remission and third-line SOC therapies and to the total upfront CAR T-cell therapy cost. Under current pricing, CAR T-cell therapy is unlikely to be cost-effective in unselected patients with FL in the third-line setting. Both randomized clinical trials and longer term clinical follow-up can help clarify the benefits of CAR T-cell therapy and optimal sequencing in patients with FL.

Chimeric antigen receptor T cells are a potentially curative new therapeutic option, but access challenges remain. The limited number of certified treatment centers and the need to travel to these centers, the expenses of travel and lodging and the out-of-pocket costs associated with treatment pose a challenge for patients. Further, the logistics of follow-up coupled with anChimeric antigen receptor T cells are a new type of cancer treatment where the cells from a patient’s own blood are changed in the laboratory and injected back into the patient so they attack cancer cells. While these drugs offer a possible cure for some cancers, patients have had problems getting these treatments because there are not many approved treatment centers. Patients have to travel to these centers, and there can be high out-of-pocket costs for travel, a place to stay and the treatment itself. The paper discusses several ways to make it easier to get these treatments, such as helping patients pay for lodging and travel and changing insurance payment policies for chimeric antigen receptor T cell treatment.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) use is critical to the care of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Quantitative BCR-ABL1 polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing every 3 months during the first year of TKI treatment is recommended to assure achievement of milestone response goals. Real-world evidence for the patterns of qPCR monitoring and TKI adherence in the older patient population is lacking. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database we identified 1192 patients aged >66 years (median age of 74 years) with newly-diagnosed CML followed for ≥13 months from TKI initiation. Nine hundred sixty five patients (81.0%) had at ≥1 test with 425 (35.7%) and 540 (45.3%) of patients tested during 1-2 and ≥3 quarters (optimal monitoring) of the first year from TKI initiation, respectively. In multivariable analysis, diagnosis in later years (compared with 2007-2010, 2011-2014 odds ratio [OR]=1.97, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-2.7, p

Patients with classical Philadelphia chromosome-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and primary and secondary myelofibrosis (MF), are known to have an increased risk of second malignancies (SMs). Hydroxyurea (HU) is a guideline-recommended cytoreductive therapy for patients at high risk for MPNs. Controversy exists as to whether HU use is associated with a higher risk of SMs, including acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). We conducted a retrospective cohort study of older patients diagnosed with MPN (age ≥66 years) between 2010 and 2017 and included the data in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare-linked database. Multivariable competing risk analyses adjusting for patient characteristics were used to assess the impact of HU on the development of SM. We identified 4023 patients (1688 with PV, 1976 with ET, and 359 with MF) with a median age of 77 (interquartile range [IQR], 71-83) years at the time of MPN diagnosis. After a median follow-up of 3.25 (IQR, 2.10-5.00) years, 489 patients developed an SM (346 solid, 73 lymphoid, and 70 myeloid malignancies). The cumulative incidence probability of SM was 19.88% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.16%-22.75%) among 2683 HU users and 22.31% (95% CI, 17.51%-27.47%) among 1340 nonusers, respectively (Gray’s test, P < .01). We did not identify significant differences in the incidence of solid or hematologic SMs, including AML/MDS (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.77-2.29; P = .30), between HU users and nonusers. Our results suggest that the use of HU does not increase the risk of SM in older patients with MPN.

The phase 3 VIALE-A trial reported that venetoclax in combination with azacitidine significantly improved response rates and overall survival compared with azacitidine alone in older, unfit patients with previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, the cost-effectiveness of azacitidine-venetoclax in this clinical setting is unknown. In this study, we constructed a partitioned survival model to compare the cost and effectiveness of azacitidine-venetoclax with azacitidine alone in previously untreated AML. Event-free and overall survival curves for each treatment strategy were derived from the VIALE-A trial using parametric survival modeling. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of azacitidine-venetoclax from a US-payer perspective. Azacitidine-venetoclax was associated with an improvement of 0.61 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with azacitidine alone. However, the combination led to significantly higher lifetime health care costs (incremental cost, $159 595), resulting in an ICER of $260 343 per QALY gained. The price of venetoclax would need to decrease by 60% for azacitidine-venetoclax to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. These data suggest that use of azacitidine-venetoclax for previously untreated AML patients who are ineligible for intensive chemotherapy is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Significant price reduction of venetoclax would be required to reduce the ICER to a more widely acceptable value.

Introduction: Patients (pts) with CLL may be at particular risk of severe COVID-19 given advanced age and immune dysregulation. Two large series with limited follow-up have reported outcomes for pts with CLL and COVID-19 (Scarfò, et al. Leukemia 2020; Mato, et al. Blood 2020). To provide maximal clarity on outcomes for pts with CLL and COVID-19, we partnered in a worldwide effort to describe the clinical experience and validate predictors of survival, including potential treatment effects. Methods: This international collaboration represents a partnership between investigators at 141 centers. Data are presented in two cohorts. Cohort 1 (Co1) includes pts captured through efforts by European Research Initiative on CLL (ERIC), Italian CAMPUS CLL Program, and Grupo Español de Leucemia Linfática Crónica. The validation cohort, Cohort 2 (Co2), includes pts from US (66%), UK (23%), EU (7%), and other countries (4%). There is no overlap in cases between cohorts. CLL pts were included if COVID-19 was diagnosed by PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 and they required inpatient hospitalization. Data were collected retrospectively 2/2020 - 5/2020 using standardized case report forms. Baseline characteristics, preexisting comorbidities (including cumulative illness rating scale (CIRS) score ≥6 vs. The primary endpoint of this study was to estimate the case fatality rate (CFR), defined as the proportion of pts who died among all pts hospitalized with COVID-19. Chi-squared test was used to compare frequencies; univariable and multivariable analyses utilized Cox regression. Predictors of inferior OS in both Co1 and Co2 were included in multivariable analyses. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate overall survival (OS) from time of COVID-19 diagnosis (dx). Results: 411 hospitalized, COVID-19 positive CLL pts were analyzed (Co1 n=281, Co2 n=130). Table 1 describes baseline characteristics. At COVID-19 dx, median age was 72 in Co1 (range 37-94) and 68 in Co2 (range 41-98); 31% (Co1) and 45% (Co2) had CIRS ≥6. In Co1, 48% were treatment-naïve and 26% were receiving CLL-directed therapy at COVID-19 dx (66% BTKi ± anti-CD20, 19% Venetoclax ± anti-CD20, 9.6% chemo/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT), 1.4% PI3Ki, 4% other). In Co2, 36% were never treated and 49% were receiving CLL-directed therapy (65% BTKi ± anti-CD20, 19% Venetoclax ± anti-CD20, 9.4% multi-novel agent combinations, 1.6% CIT, 1.6% PI3Ki, 1.6% anti-CD20 monotherapy, 1.6% other). Most pts receiving CLL-directed therapy had it held at COVID-19 diagnosis (93% in Co1 and 81% in Co2). Frequency of most COVID-19 symptoms/laboratory abnormalities were similar in the two cohorts including fever (88% in both), lymphocytosis (ALC ≥30 x 109/L; 27% vs. 21%), and lymphocytopenia (ALC < 1.0 x 109/L; 18% vs. 28%), while others varied between Co1 and Co2 (p Median follow-up was 24 days (range 2-86) in Co1 and 17 days (1-43) in Co2. CFRs were similar in Co1 and Co2, 30% and 34% (p=0.45). 54% and 43% were discharged while 16% and 23% remained admitted at last follow-up in Co1 and Co2, respectively. The proportion of pts requiring supplemental oxygen was similar (89% vs. 92%) while rate of ICU admission was higher in Co2 (20% vs. 48%, p Conclusions : In the largest cancer dx-specific cohort reported, pts with CLL hospitalized for COVID-19 had a CFR of 30-34%. Advanced patient age at COVID-19 diagnosis was an independent predictor of OS in two large cohorts. This CFR will serve as a benchmark for mortality for future outcomes studies, including therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 in this population. The effect of CLL treatment on OS was inconsistent across cohorts; COVID-19 may be severe regardless of treatment status. While there were no significant differences in distribution of current lines of therapy between cohorts, prior chemo exposure was more common in Co1 vs. Co2, which may account for difference in OS. Extended follow-up will be presented. Disclosures Roeker: American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Scarfo:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Abrisqueta:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Eyre:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support; KITE, AZ, Loxo Oncology at Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Muntañola Prat:Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; participated in advisory boards; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; participated in advisory boards; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel grants; participated in advisory boards. Villacampa:AstraZeneca: Other: advisory role; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Honoraria. Leslie:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; KitePharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Allan:Acerta, Genentech, Abbvie, Sunesis, Ascentage, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene: Consultancy; Celgene, Genentech, Janssen, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Furman:Incyte: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Oncotarget: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Pagel:BeiGene, Astrazeneca, Loxo Oncology, Gilead: Consultancy. Hernandez-Rivas:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rovi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patel:Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Motta:Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Lamanna:AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Bei-Gene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vitale:Janssen: Honoraria. Kamdar:Roche: Research Funding. Österborg:BeiGene: Research Funding; Kancera: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy; Karolinska Univeristy Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden: Current Employment. Hanson:Janssen-Cilag: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria. Eichhorst:ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Oxford Biomedica: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel support, Research Funding. Reda:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Varettoni:Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; AbbVie: Other: Travel/accommodations/expenses; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Marchetti:Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Other: Sponsored meetings; Takeda: Other: Sponsored meetings; Pfeizer: Other: Sponsored meetings. Munir:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Other: Medical writing support, furnished by Scott Battle, PhD, of Health Interactions, was funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland; Alexion: Honoraria. Zabalza:Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel grants; Roche: Other: travel grants; Novartis: Other: travel grants. Janssens:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees; Roche: Consultancy, Other: travel grants; speaker fees. Niemann:AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Danish Cancer Society: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk Foundation: Honoraria, Research Funding. Perini:Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Speakers Bureau. Patten:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria. Marasca:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria. Iyengar:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Ferrari:Abbvie: Honoraria. El-Sharkawi:Roche: Other: Conference fees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Itchaki:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ma:Novartis: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bioverativ: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Van Der Spek:AMGEN: Other: Teaching activities. Seymour:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Rigolin:Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mauro:Roche: Other; Octopharma: Other; Takeda-Shire: Other; Gilead: Other; Janssen: Other; Abbvie: Other. Laurenti:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Levin:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel compensation; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel compensation; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel compensation. Špaček:Gilead: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Walewska:AbbVie: Other: sponsored for educational meetings, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: sponsored for educational meetings, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wiestner:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company; Acerta, Merck, Nurix, Verastem, and Genmab: Research Funding; National Institutes of Health: Patents & Royalties: and other intellectual property. Broom:Gilead: Other: Travel support, Speakers Bureau. Kater:Abbvie: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Ujjani:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Vandenberghe:Celgene: Other: sponsorship to attend Lugano lymphoma meeting in 2019; Gilead: Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Abbvie: Other: travel grants, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: travel grants; Roche: Other: travel grants, Research Funding. Chong:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Tessa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Brown:Janssen, Teva: Speakers Bureau; Gilead, Loxo, Sun, Verastem: Research Funding; Abbvie, Acerta, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Invectys, Juno/Celgene, Kite, Morphosys, Novartis, Octapharma, Pharmacyclics, Sunesis, TG Therapeutics, Verastem: Consultancy. Trentin:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria. Farina:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sanchez:Abbvie: Other: travel grants; Amgem: Other: travel grants; Janssen: Other: travel grants; Celgene: Other: travel grants; Roche: Other: travel grants. Shadman:Abbvie, Genentech, Astra Zeneca, Sound Biologics , Pharmacyclics, Verastem, ADC therapeutics, Beigene, Cellectar, BMS, Morphosys and Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Mustang Bio, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Gilead, Genentech, Abbvie, TG therapeutics, Beigene, Astra Zeneca, Sunesis, Beigene: Research Funding. Foglietta:Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Jaksic:Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Sportoletti:AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Barr:Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Ruchlemer:Abbvie Inc: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kersting:Celgene: Other: travel grant; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding. Huntington:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; DTRM: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Herishanu:Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Medison: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria. Jacobs:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi Genzyme: Speakers Bureau. Portell:BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding. Rambaldi:Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Astellas: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); University of Milan: Current Employment; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Received travel support., Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support from Gilead.; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Research grant from Amgen Inc.; Omeros: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Advisory board and speaker fees from Pfizer.. Brander:Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tolero: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tolero: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding. Rossi:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coscia:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Coombs:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; MEI Pharma: Honoraria; LOXO Oncology: Honoraria; Octapharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Schuster:Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Foà:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Cuneo:Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Bosch:Jansen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria. Stamatopoulos:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen, Gilead, Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ghia:Adaptive, Dynamo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; MEI: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sunesis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta/AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mato:Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding.

The ALLIANCE A041202 trial found that continuously administered ibrutinib in the first-line setting significantly prolonged progression-free survival compared with a fixed-duration treatment of rituximab and bendamustine in older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). In this study, we created a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib in the first-line setting, compared with a strategy of using ibrutinib in the third-line after failure of time-limited bendamustine and venetoclax-based regimens. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct health care costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated from a US payer perspective. First-line ibrutinib was associated with an improvement of 0.26 QALYs and 0.40 life-years compared with using ibrutinib in the third-line setting. However, using ibrutinib in the first-line led to significantly higher health care costs (incremental cost of $612 700), resulting in an ICER of $2 350 041 per QALY. The monthly cost of ibrutinib would need to be decreased by 72% for first-line ibrutinib therapy to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. In a scenario analysis where ibrutinib was used in the second-line in the delayed ibrutinib arm, first-line ibrutinib had an incremental cost of $478 823, an incremental effectiveness of 0.05 QALYs, and an ICER of $9 810 360 per QALY when compared with second-line use. These data suggest that first-line ibrutinib for unselected older adults with CLL is unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying ibrutinib for most patients with CLL until later lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit health care costs without compromising clinical outcomes.

The hypomethylating agents (HMAs) azacitidine and decitabine have been the de facto standard of care for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are unfit for intensive therapy. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we identified 2263 older adults (age ≥66 years) diagnosed with AML during 2005-2015 who received a first-line HMA; 1154 (51%) received azacitidine, and 1109 (49%) received decitabine. Median survival from diagnosis was 7.1 and 8.2 months (P < .01) for azacitidine- and decitabine-treated patients, respectively. Mortality risk was higher with azacitidine vs decitabine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.21; P = .02). The findings were similar when evaluating only patients completing ≥4 cycles (42% of patients treated with either azacitidine or decitabine). These findings lost significance when evaluating those completing a standard 7-day schedule of azacitidine (34%) vs 5-day schedule for decitabine (66%) (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.08; P = .43). Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion independence (TI) was achieved in one-third of patients with no difference between the 2 HMAs. In conclusion, the majority of older AML patients did not receive the minimum of 4 cycles of HMA often needed to elicit clinical benefit. We observed no clinically meaningful differences between azacitidine- and decitabine-treated patients in their achievement of RBC TI or survival.

Cytarabine-anthracycline based intensive induction chemotherapy (IC) remains the standard of care for remission induction among fit patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the United States (US). However, the mortality rate outside of clinical IC trials, predictors of death, and resource utilization during admission for IC have not been thoroughly examined. We used the Premier Healthcare database to identify adult patients (aged 18-89 years) treated with cytarabine-anthracycline-based IC during their first recorded inpatient stay for AML during the contemporary period of 2010 to 2017. We identified factors associated with inpatient death or discharge to hospice, using multivariable logistic regression models. We also assessed the patterns of inpatient healthcare resource utilization. A total of 6442 patients with AML from 313 hospitals who were treated with IC were identified. Median age was 61 years (interquartile range [IQR], 50-68 years), and 56% were men. Median length of stay was 29 (IQR, 25-38) days, with rates of in-hospital death and discharge to hospice of 12.3% and 3.7% (17.9% and 6.3% among patients aged ≥65 years), respectively. Predictors of in-hospital death or discharge to hospice included older age, geographic region, and lower hospital volume. During admission, 28.0%, 12.6%, and 4.0% of patients required treatment in intensive care units, mechanical ventilation, and dialysis, respectively. Despite improvements in supportive care in the contemporary era, inpatient mortality during first hospitalization for adult patients with AML treated with IC in the US remains high particularly among older patients.

Prophylaxis is commonly used to prevent central nervous sy stem (CNS) relapse in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), with no clear standard of care. We retrospectively evaluated 1162 adult patients across 21 US academic centers with DLBCL or similar histologies who received single-route CNS prophylaxis as part of frontline therapy between 2013 and 2019. Prophylaxis was administered intrathecally(IT) in 894 (77%) and using systemic high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) in 236 (20%); 32 patients (3%) switched route due to toxicity and were assessed separately. By CNS-International Prognostic Index (IPI), 18% were considered low-risk, 51% moderate, and 30% high. Double-hit lymphoma (DHL) was confirmed in 243 of 866 evaluable patients (21%). Sixty-four patients (5.7%) had CNS relapse after median 7.1 months from diagnosis, including 15 of 64 (23%) within the first 6 months. There was no significant difference in CNS relapse between IT and HD-MTX recipients (5.4% vs 6.8%, P = .4), including after propensity score matching to account for differences between respective recipient groups. Weighting by CNS-IPI, expected vs observed CNS relapse rates were nearly identical (5.8% vs 5.7%). Testicular involvement was associated with high risk of CNS relapse (11.3%) despite most having lower CNS-IPI scores. DHL did not significantly predict for CNS relapse after single-route prophylaxis, including with adjustment for treatment regimen and other factors. This large study of CNS prophylaxis recipients with DLBCL found no significant difference in CNS relapse rates between routes of administration. Relapse rates among high-risk subgroups remain elevated, and reconsideration of prophylaxis strategies in DLBCL is of critical need.

Background: Despite advances in chemoimmunotherapy and stem cell transplantation, mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) has historically been difficult to treat. Patients with advanced age and high-risk features (e.g. blastoid/pleomorphic features, high MIPI score, complex karyotype, TP53 mutation) face particularly poor outcomes with standard chemoimmunotherapy. Ibrutinib, a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi), was approved for second-line use in MCL in 2013. Other BTKis - acalabrutinib and zanubrutinib were approved in 2017 and 2019, respectively. BTKi provides a well-tolerated chemotherapy-free option for these hard-to-treat subgroups, especially the older patients. In this population-based study, we evaluated survival outcomes prior to and after the approval of ibrutinib, and hypothesized that survival benefit observed early after approval would be greatest in older patients not typically candidates for consolidative transplantation in the first-line setting. Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, we included all adult patients diagnosed with MCL in the years 2007-2018 and followed them to the end of 2018 or death, whichever came first. The pre-BTKi era was defined by year of diagnosis 2007-2011, and the BTKi era was between 2014 and 2018. The years 2012-2013 were considered as a "washout" period to allow practice change related to the approval of ibrutinib. As age plays an important role in treatment decisions, including whether to use consolidative transplantation, patients were divided based on age at diagnosis: Results: We identified 7,625 individuals diagnosed with MCL during our study period (3,424 and 4,201 diagnosed during 2007-2011 and 2014-2018, respectively). The majority were male (71%) and white (90%), with 49% of patients 70 years or older. The median follow-up was 9.2 and 2.4 years for patients diagnosed during 2007-2011 and 2014-2018, respectively. The 3-year all-cause mortality and 3-year MFM rates were 39.8% and 27.3%, respectively, in the overall population. Both the 3-year all-cause mortality and MFM increased as age increased. The 3-year all-cause mortality was lower in the BTKi era among all age groups, except patients In the multivariable analyses, risk of death was significantly lower during the BTKi era in the 60-69 (HR:0.85, 95% CI: 0.72-1.00) and 70-79 (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.92) age groups. MFM was also significantly lower during the BTKi era in these two age groups (60-69: sHR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.94; 70-79: sHR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.65-0.90, Table). The results were largely unchanged in sensitivity analyses (results not shown). Conclusion: In this large population-based cohort analysis of individuals diagnosed with MCL, overall and lymphoma-specific survival improved in the BTKi era. At a median follow up of 2.4 years in our BTKi cohort, significant survival benefits were observed in those older than 60 but less than 80 years of age, and the observed benefits were greatest in the 70-79 age group. Future real-world studies should examine the impact of novel agents on treatment patterns and outcomes of MCL over a longer follow up period. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kothari: Incyte pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zeidan: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy; Jasper: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeyondSpring: Consultancy; Acceleron: Consultancy, Research Funding; BioCryst: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Astex: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Geron: Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Pfizer: Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy, Other: Clinical Trial Committees; Aprea: Consultancy, Research Funding. Podoltsev: PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Neparidze: Janssen: Research Funding; Eidos Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Shallis: Curis: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Ma: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Huntington: AbbVie: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; SeaGen: Consultancy; DTRM Biopharm: Research Funding; Flatiron Health Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bayer: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Thyme Inc: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Background: Umbralisib is an oral, once-daily, novel, dual inhibitor of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase-delta (PI3Kδ) and casein kinase-1ε (CK1ε) that exhibits improved selectivity for the delta isoform of PI3K. Ublituximab is a novel anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody glycoengineered for enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity that targets a unique epitope on CD20. U2 has been well-tolerated and demonstrated promising activity in heavily pre-treated CLL patients. Herein, results are presented for the randomized, multicenter, Phase 3 UNITY-CLL trial (NCT02612311), which evaluated U2 vs O+Chl in patients with TN and R/R CLL. Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age with treatment-naïve (TN) or relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL requiring treatment per iwCLL criteria with adequate organ function and ECOG PS ≤2 were eligible. Stratification factors included treatment status (TN vs R/R) and del(17p) status. Patients were initially randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive U2, O+Chl, umbralisib monotherapy, or ublituximab monotherapy. Following establishment of contribution comparing U2 to the single agents, patients were randomized 1:1 to U2 or O+Chl. Umbralisib was given orally at 800 mg once-daily until progression or removal from treatment for other reasons. Ublituximab was administered intravenously at 900 mg on Days 1/2 [split 150/750 mg], 8, and 15 of Cycle 1, Day 1 of Cycles 2 - 6, and on Day 1 every 3 cycles after Cycle 6. O was given intravenously at 1000 mg on Days 1/2 [split 100/900], 8, and 15 of Cycle 1, and Day 1 of Cycles 2 - 6. Chl was given orally at 0.5 mg/kg on Day 1 and 15 of Cycles 1 - 6. Each cycle was 28 days. The primary endpoint was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) of U2 vs O+Chl. Key secondary endpoints included IRC-assessed overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), undetectable minimal residual disease (uMRD), duration of response (DOR), and safety (assessed from the first dose until 30 days after the last dose of study medication in each arm) as well as contribution of umbralisib and ublituximab to the U2 combination. Results: From Feb 2016 - Oct 2017, 421 pts were randomized to the U2 (n=210) or O+Chl (n=211) arms. The median age was 67 y (range, 36-91); 57% of patients (n=240) were treatment-naïve; 43% (n=181) had R/R CLL (median number of prior treatments = 1); 10% had del(17p), 20% del(11q), and 56% were IgHV unmutated. 66% were male. Demographics were well-balanced between treatment arms. At a median follow-up of 36.2 mos, U2 significantly prolonged PFS vs O+Chl (median 31.9 mos vs 17.9 mos; HR 0.546, 95% CI 0.413-0.720, P The median treatment duration was 23 mos for U2 (range, 0.1 - 49 mos) and 5 mos (range, 0.1 - 7 mos) for O+Chl. G3/4 AEs of interest regardless of causality (U2 vs O+Chl) included neutropenia (30.6% vs 34.7%), thrombocytopenia (3.4% vs 13.1%), diarrhea (12.1% vs 2.5%), infusion related reaction (1.9% vs 3.5%), elevated AST/ALTs (8.3% vs 2%), colitis (3.4% vs 0%) and pneumonitis (2.9% vs 0%). AEs led to treatment discontinuation in 34 patients (16.5%) on U2 and 16 patients (7.6%) on O+Chl. Conclusions: UNITY-CLL is the first randomized Phase 3 study in CLL of a PI3Ki vs. chemoimmunotherapy, and the first randomized study of a PI3Ki in treatment-naive CLL. U2 exhibited a well-tolerated safety profile, and significantly improved PFS vs. standard of care chemoimmunotherapy in patients with treatment-naive and relapsed/refractory CLL. Figure Disclosures Gribben: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria. Jurczak:Celgene: Research Funding; Afimed: Research Funding; Sandoz-Novartis: Consultancy; European Medicines Agency,: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen China R&D: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Krakow, Poland: Current Employment; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Nordic Nanovector: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Jacobs:Sanofi Genzyme: Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding. Giannopoulos:BMS-Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Wrobel:Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Zafar:Bristol Meyers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Florida Cancer Specialists and Research Institute: Current Employment; Sarah Canon Research Institute: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Danilov:Nurix: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Biosciences: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Takeda Oncology: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rigel Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bayer Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding. Burke:Gilead: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy. Goldschmidt:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy; Blue Ridge Cancer Care: Current Employment. Huntington:Genentech: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; DTRM: Research Funding. Pinilla Ibarz:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Sharman:Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding. Siddiqi:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncternal: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Brander:MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Tolero: Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding. Kolibaba:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology: Consultancy, Other; Verastem: Honoraria; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; McKesson Life Sciences: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Atara Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Cell Therapeutics: Research Funding; Compass Oncology: Ended employment in the past 24 months. Ghosh:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Forty Seven Inc: Consultancy, Other: Research Bureau, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno/Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; SGN: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Research Funding. Sportelli:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Miskin:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. O'Connor:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kymera Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nomocan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Other: Consulting; Servier: Consultancy. Weiss:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flinn:Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy; Curis: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Vincera Pharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Triphase Research & Development Corp.: Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; Loxo: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Great Point Partners: Consultancy; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Other; Yingli Pharmaceuticals ≠: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curio Science: Consultancy; Nurix Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Calithera Biosciences: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Hypomethylating agents (HMA) showed overall survival (OS) benefits in patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS) in clinical trials. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data of patients ≥66 years diagnosed with refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB), a proxy for HR-MDS, in 01/2001–04/2004 (pre-period) or 01/2006–12/2011 (post-period). Association between post-period diagnosis and OS was examined using propensity scores (PS)-matched samples. Among 1,876 RAEB patients, median OS was 9 months and 30.8% received HMAs (3.6% in pre-period; 43.0% in post-period) with no association between post-period diagnosis and OS. In the top PS quartile, post-period diagnosis was associated with a 74% lower risk of death (Hazard ratio [HR]=0.26, 95%-CI: 0.10–0.69, P=0.007), while outcomes were worse in the lowest PS quartile (HR=2.80, 95%-CI: 1.06–7.36, P=0.037). HMA lead to a 3-month OS benefit for patients most likely to receive HMA but not for unselected RAEB cohort.

Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) stands out as success story in the field of medical oncology, with multiagent chemotherapy with or without radiation leading to durable remission for most patients. Large-scale clinical trials during the past 40 years have sought to minimize toxicities while maintaining strong efficacy, including efforts to reduce the size of radiation fields, minimize alkylator chemotherapy, reduce the number of chemotherapy cycles, and omit radiation in select populations. The last decade has also ushered in novel therapies, including brentuximab vedotin (BV), that have improved clinical outcomes for patients with cHL resistant to standard cytotoxic therapies. More recently, a large randomized trial compared BV plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone for first-line treatment of advanced stage cHL. With ∼24 months of available follow-up, the BV containing regimen was found to be associated with a reduction in the risk of progression, death, or incomplete response to first-line treatment (modified progression-free survival). Whether this early signal of improved efficacy is worth the additional acute toxicities and added drug-related expenses associated with incorporating BV into first-line treatment remains controversial. This chapter provides historical background; reviews the cost-effectiveness of available cHL therapies; and summarizes potential ways to balance innovation, affordability, and patient access to novel therapeutics.

Background: Provider experience, or clinical volume, is associated with improved outcomes in many complex healthcare settings. Despite increased complexity of anticancer therapies, studies evaluating physician-level experience and cancer treatment outcomes are lacking. Methods: A population-based study was conducted of older adults (aged ≥66 years) diagnosed with B-cell non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2004 through 2011 using SEER-Medicare data. Analysis focused on outcomes in patients receiving rituximab, the first approved monoclonal anticancer immunotherapy. We hypothesized that lower physician experience using rituximab and managing its infusion-related reactions would be associated with early treatment discontinuation. A 12-month look-back from each initiation of rituximab was used to categorize physician volume (0, 1–2, or ≥3 initiations per year). Modified Poisson regression was used to account for provider-level correlation and estimated relative risk (RR) of early rituximab discontinuation (Results: Among 15,110 patients who initiated rituximab with 2,684 physicians, 7.6% experienced early rituximab discontinuation. Approximately one-fourth of patients (26.1%) initiated rituximab with a physician who had no rituximab initiations during the preceding 12 months. Compared with patients treated by physicians who had ≥3 rituximab initiations in the prior year, those treated by physicians without initiations were 57% more likely to experience early discontinuation (adjusted RR [aRR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.35–1.82; PP=.02 for 1–2 vs ≥3). Additionally, rituximab discontinuation was associated with higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.28–1.52; PConclusions: Lower oncologist experience with rituximab was associated with increased risk of early rituximab discontinuation in Medicare beneficiaries with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Physician-level volume may be an important factor in providing high-quality cancer care in the modern era.

Population level survival of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) treated with hypomethylating agents (HMA) is inferior to clinical trials. Using SEER-Medicare data, we identified 2,086 MDS patients diagnosed in 2004–13, aged ≥66 years at diagnosis, and receiving ≥1 HMA cycle. We used multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to assess the impact of provider experience on persistent HMA therapy and overall survival (OS), respectively. Median number of HMA cycles was 4 and median OS was 10 months. 32% of patients were treated by providers with ≥1 prior HMA initiation in the last 2 years and were more likely to receive ≥4 cycles of HMA therapy (OR=1.29, 95%-CI: 1.06–1.57; P=.01). No significant association was found between MDS or HMA initiation volume and survival. In conclusion, while HMA initiation volume was associated with persistent HMA treatment, neither MDS nor HMA initiation volumes were associated with OS in older MDS patients.

Introduction: The cost of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treatment is substantial and increasing. Inpatient treatment costs for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and intensive chemotherapy are the main cost drivers in AML, however this pattern may change as new, expensive oral therapies enter the market. Areas covered: The authors provide an overview of the healthcare costs in patients with AML treated with various modalities (intensive chemotherapy, allogeneic HSCT, low-intensity treatment and supportive care only). The authors review both the impact of the recently approved novel AML agents and an increasingly personalized treatment approach on healthcare resources. Finally, the authors discuss whether these treatments are cost-effective from a societal perspective and how the increase in AML-associated costs can potentially be slowed. Expert opinion: The direct healthcare costs of AML are substantial and vary depending on the treatment approach, the country studied, and in the United States, a patient's insurance status. Treatment costs have increased out of proportion to general inflation and this trend is likely going to continue or even accelerate. Societal consensus on cost-effectiveness is essential. It remains to be seen how advances in diagnostic techniques and the incorporation of novel agents will impact medical outcomes, costs and influence health policy.

Key Points 14% of newly diagnosed APL patients in the Vizient Clinical Data Base died during initial admission or were discharged to hospice.Adverse outcomes were lower with guideline-concordant treatment, low-risk disease, higher hospital AML volume, and younger age., Visual Abstract, Acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) is associated with a favorable long-term prognosis if appropriate treatment is initiated promptly. Outcomes in clinical trials and population-based registries vary; potential explanations include a delay in treatment and lower adherence to guideline-recommended therapy in real-world practice. We used the Vizient Clinical Data Base to describe demographic characteristics, baseline clinical characteristics, and treatment patterns in patients newly diagnosed with APL during the study period of April 2017 to March 2020. Baseline white blood cell count was used to assign risk status and assess treatment concordance with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Logistic regression models examined adjusted associations between patient, hospital, disease characteristics, and adverse outcomes (in-hospital death or discharge to hospice). Among 1464 patients with APL, 205 (14.0%) experienced an adverse outcome. A substantial subset (20.6%) of patients did not receive guideline-concordant regimens. Odds of adverse outcomes increased with failure to receive guideline-concordant treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-3.75; P = .001), high-risk disease (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.53-4.00; P < .001), and increasing age (≥60 years: OR, 11.13; 95% CI, 4.55-27.22; P < .001). Higher hospital acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patient volume was associated with lower odds of adverse outcome (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.99 [for ≤50 vs >200 AML patients per year]; P = .046). In conclusion, in this large database analysis, 14.0% of patients newly diagnosed with APL died or were discharged to hospice. A substantial proportion of patients did not receive guideline-concordant therapy, potentially contributing to adverse outcomes.

The BOSTON trial showed that use of once-weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) prolonged progression-free survival compared to twice-weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) multiple myeloma (MM). In this study, we constructed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of SVd versus Vd in R/R MM. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment strategy from a US payer perspective, using a lifetime horizon and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Use of SVd was associated with an incremental cost of $170,002 compared to Vd alone ($1,015,120 vs. $845,118, respectively), an incremental effectiveness of 0.35 QALYs (3.43 vs. 3.08 QALYs, respectively), and an ICER of $487,361/QALY. These data suggest that use of once-weekly SVd for R/R M/M is unlikely to be cost-effective compared to twice-weekly Vd.

Visual Abstract

Existing studies regarding the role of DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) and lenalidomide in refractory anemia with ring sideroblasts (RARS) are limited. Using the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare database, we assembled a population-based cohort of older adults diagnosed with non-del(5q) lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes during 2007-2015. Of 2167 patients, 30% had RARS. About 16% of RARS and non- ring sideroblasts (RS) patients received DNMTi. RARS patients were more likely to receive lenalidomide (11.1% vs. 7.1%

PURPOSE The MAIA trial found that addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) significantly prolonged progression-free survival in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd). However, daratumumab is a costly treatment and is administered indefinitely until disease progression. Therefore, it is unclear whether it is cost-effective to use daratumumab in the first-line setting compared with reserving its use until later lines of therapy. METHODS We created a Markov model to compare healthcare costs and clinical outcomes of transplant-ineligible patients treated with daratumumab in the first-line setting compared with a strategy of reserving daratumumab until the second-line. We estimated transition probabilities from randomized trials using parametric survival modeling. Lifetime direct healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for first-line daratumumab versus second-line daratumumab from a US payer perspective. RESULTS First-line daratumumab was associated with an improvement of 0.52 QALYs and 0.66 discounted life-years compared with second-line daratumumab. While both treatment strategies were associated with considerable lifetime expenditures ($1,434,937 v $1,112,101 in US dollars), an incremental cost of $322,836 for first-line daratumumab led to an ICER of $618,018 per QALY. The cost of daratumumab would need to be decreased by 67% for first-line daratumumab to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY. CONCLUSION Using daratumumab in the first-line setting for transplant-ineligible patients may not be cost-effective under current pricing. Delaying daratumumab until subsequent lines of therapy may be a reasonable strategy to limit healthcare costs without significantly compromising clinical outcomes. Mature overall survival data are necessary to more fully evaluate cost-effectiveness in this setting.

This economic evaluation uses Markov modeling to identify and compare the cost and utility of doublet and standard treatments for patients with BRAF V600E variant colorectal cancer., Key Points Question Is the use of doublet therapy (encorafenib and cetuximab) compared with standard chemotherapy (with cetuximab and irinotecan-based regimens) a cost-effective treatment strategy in patients with metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer? Findings In this economic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of 2 treatment strategies, doublet therapy was associated with an incremental cost of $78 233, an incremental effectiveness of 0.15 quality-adjusted life years, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $523 374 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Meaning Results of this study suggest that doublet therapy for metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment under current pricing., Importance The BEACON trial showed that combination therapy with encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) and cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) was associated with prolonged overall survival compared with standard chemotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer. However, the cost-effectiveness of using these agents in this clinical setting is unknown. Objective To create a cost-effectiveness model to compare doublet therapy (encorafenib plus cetuximab) with standard chemotherapy (cetuximab plus irinotecan or cetuximab plus folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) in treating patients with metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants This economic evaluation constructed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and utility of doublet therapy and standard chemotherapy. Parametric survival modeling was used to extrapolate the effectiveness of each line of therapy from large clinical trials. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses assessed the uncertainty in the model. Patients mirrored the cohorts in the BEACON trial: they had metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer and were followed up as they progressed through multiple lines of therapy, best supportive care, and death. Data collection and data analysis were performed from November 15, 2019, to July 14, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which was calculated using the cumulative cost and effectiveness in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), of doublet therapy compared with standard chemotherapy. Results The model patient cohort had a mean age of 61 years, and 53% of the patients were women, 66% had 1 previous line of therapy, and 8% had high microsatellite instability. Doublet therapy was associated with an improvement of 0.15 QALYs compared with standard chemotherapy. However, the incremental cost of doublet therapy was $78 233, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $523 374 per QALY gained. Concomitant decreases in the price of encorafenib and cetuximab are needed to achieve cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY gained. Conclusions and Relevance This study found that doublet therapy for metastatic BRAF variant colorectal cancer was unlikely to be cost-effective under current pricing. Cost-effectiveness needs to be considered in clinical trial design, particularly when combining new therapies with non-cost-effective treatments that are coadministered without a fixed duration.

7554 Background: In the clinical trial setting, rituximab maintenance (RM) improved survival of older adults with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) compared to maintenance interferon following RCHOP. However, given the considerable shift away from the use of RCHOP for MCL, real-world effectiveness of RM is now uncertain for MCL in older adults. We used SEER-Medicare, a large population-based data set, to evaluate MCL treatment patterns and assess effectiveness of RM following standard chemoimmunotherapy in older patients. Methods: We selected adults ≥66 years old, diagnosed with MCL 2007-2017, with continuous Medicare A/B/D coverage, who received MCL therapy. We captured 1st and 2nd line regimens, defining RM as rituximab (R) given as a single agent after R-based multi-agent induction regimen, with treatment gap ≤200 days (d) prior, for ≥2 consecutive doses and lasting ≥ 28d. We examined the benefits of RM in patients who received bendamustine-R (BR) or RCHOP as 1st line with no consolidative stem cell transplant (SCT). We limited our control group to those who survived ≥ 200d (if no 2nd line given) or had a gap ≥ 200d between completion of induction and initiation of 2nd line treatment to reduce potential immortal time bias. We used propensity score matching (PSM) based on age, sex, race, marital status, Medicaid dual coverage, residence, poverty, frailty, comorbidities, year of diagnosis, extranodal disease, stage, 1st line regimen, and duration of 1st line therapy. We used Cox regression model to compare all-cause mortality (AM) and reported hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted competing risk analysis for mortality from MCL (MFM; competing event [CE]: non-lymphoma mortality [NLM]) and initiation of 2nd line therapy (CE: AM), respectively, reporting sub-HR (sHR). Results: Of 1579 older adults treated for MCL, BR (37%) and RCHOP (17%) were the most common 1st line regimens. Among those receiving BR/RCHOP, 44% received RM. Only 3% received SCT. Use of RCHOP decreased substantially over time (2007: 31%, 2017: 5%, P for time trend

A recent phase II trial showed that use of polatuzumab vedotin in combination with bendamustine plus rituximab (Pola-BR) in transplant-ineligible patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) resulted in longer progression-free survival and overall survival compared to bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) alone. In this study, we constructed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of Pola-BR versus BR in transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each treatment strategy from a US payer perspective, using a lifetime horizon and a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Use of Pola-BR was associated with an incremental cost of $92,641 compared to BR alone ($200,905 vs $108,265, respectively), an incremental effectiveness of 1.76 QALYs (2.35 vs 0.59 QALYs, respectively), and an ICER of $52,519/QALY. These data suggest that use of Pola-BR for R/R DLBCL is likely to be cost-effective compared to BR alone.