Adam E. Haynes

The Use of Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Systematic Review and Practice Guideline

Background: This clinical practice guideline, based on a systematic review, was developed to determine which chemotherapeutic agents (or combinations of agents) show the highest response rates, improved survival, quality of life, or symptom control in patients with advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. Methods: A thorough systematic search of the literature was conducted for published articles and conference proceedings for applicable abstracts. Relevant trials, published as articles and abstracts, were selected and assessed. External feedback was obtained from Ontario clinicians, and the guideline was approved by the provincial Lung Cancer Disease Site Group. Results: One hundred nineteen studies were eligible, including eight randomized trials and 111 phase II trials. The pooled response rates from phase II trials suggest that response rates with combination chemotherapy are higher than with single agents. Data from the largest randomized controlled trial demonstrated that chemotherapy with cisplatin and pemetrexed significantly improves response rates (41% versus 17%, p < 0.001), time to progression (5.7 months versus 3.9 months, p = 0.001), and overall survival (median, 12.1 months versus 9.3 months, hazard ratio = 0.77, p = 0.020) in comparison to single-agent cisplatin. A second trial demonstrated cisplatin and raltitrexed significantly improved median survival compared to single-agent cisplatin (11.4 months versus 8.8 months; hazard ratio = 0.76, p = 0.0483). Overall response rate (24% versus 14%, p = 0.056) was greater in the combination treatment arm, but this difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions: There is good evidence to recommend chemotherapy with pemetrexed and cisplatin for adult patients with symptomatic advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma. Such treatment should be administered with supplementation of vitamin B12 and folic acid. If pemetrexed is not available, cisplatin plus raltitrexed is a reasonable alternative.

The ASH Choosing Wisely® Campaign: five hematologic tests and treatments to question

Choosing Wisely® is a medical stewardship and quality improvement initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with leading medical societies in the United States. The ASH is an active participant in the Choosing Wisely® project. Using an iterative process and an evidence-based method, ASH has identified 5 tests and treatments that in some circumstances are not well supported by evidence and which in certain cases involve a risk of adverse events and financial costs with low likelihood of benefit. The ASH Choosing Wisely® recommendations focus on avoiding liberal RBC transfusion, avoiding thrombophilia testing in adults in the setting of transient major thrombosis risk factors, avoiding inferior vena cava filter usage except in specified circumstances, avoiding the use of plasma or prothrombin complex concentrate in the nonemergent reversal of vitamin K antagonists, and limiting routine computed tomography surveillance after curative-intent treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We recommend that clinicians carefully consider anticipated benefits of the identified tests and treatments before performing them.

A meta-analysis and systematic review of thalidomide for patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the efficacy and toxicity of thalidomide in previously untreated patients with myeloma. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and abstracts from the American Society of Hematology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of either induction or maintenance thalidomide in adults with previously untreated myeloma. Nine RCTs of induction thalidomide, three RCTs of maintenance thalidomide, and one RCT of induction and maintenance thalidomide were identified, involving a total of 4144 subjects. When thalidomide was added to standard, non-transplantation myeloma therapy, overall survival (OS) improved (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.56-0.81). When thalidomide was given as maintenance following autologous transplantation (ASCT), there was a trend to improved OS (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37-1.01); when the only trial which combined induction and maintenance thalidomide was excluded from this analysis, a significant survival advantage emerged (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.32-0.74). The relative risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) with induction thalidomide was 2.56 (95% CI 1.88-3.49). A meta-analysis of trials/sub-groups administering low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as VTE prophylaxis, suggested a persistently increased relative risk of VTE with induction thalidomide (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07-2.22). The relative risk of VTE was substantially lower, but still elevated, when thalidomide was given as maintenance therapy following ASCT (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.15-3.30). In summary, thalidomide appears to improve the overall survival of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma both when it is added to standard, non-transplantation therapy, and when it is given as maintenance therapy following ASCT. However, thalidomide is associated with toxicity, particularly a significantly increased risk of VTE.

Bortezomib in multiple myeloma: systematic review and clinical considerations

We conducted a systematic review to determine the appropriate use of bortezomib alone or in combination with other agents in patients with multiple myeloma (mm). We searched medline, embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of included studies. We analyzed randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews if they involved adult mm patients treated with bortezomib and if they reported on survival, disease control, response, quality of life, or adverse effects. Twenty-six unique studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients with previously untreated mm and for candidates for transplantation, we found a statistically significant benefit in time to progression [hazard ratio (hr): 0.48, p < 0.001; and hr: 0.63, p = 0.006, respectively] and a better response with a bortezomib than with a non-bortezomib regimen (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival was longer with bortezomib and thalidomide than with thalidomide alone (p = 0.01). In non-candidates for transplantation, a significant benefit in overall survival was observed with a bortezomib regimen (hr compared with a non-bortezomib regimen: 0.61; p = 0.008), and in transplantation candidates receiving bortezomib, the response rate was improved after induction (p = 0.004) and after a first transplant (p = 0.016). In relapsed or refractory mm, overall survival (p = 0.03), time to progression (hr: 1.82; p = 0.000004), and progression-free survival (hr: 1.69; p = 0.000026) were significantly improved with bortezomib and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (compared with bortezomib alone), and bortezomib monotherapy was better than dexamethasone alone (hr: 0.77; p = 0.027). Bortezomib combined with thalidomide and dexamethasone was better than either bortezomib monotherapy or thalidomide with dexamethasone (p < 0.001). In previously untreated or in relapsed or refractory mm patients, bortezomib-based therapy has improved disease control and, in some patients, overall survival.

Five hematologic tests and treatments to question

Choosing Wisely(®) is a medical stewardship initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with professional medical societies in the United States. The American Society of Hematology (ASH) released its first Choosing Wisely(®) list in 2013. Using the same evidence-based methodology as in 2013, ASH has identified 5 additional tests and treatments that should be questioned by clinicians and patients under specific, indicated circumstances. The ASH 2014 Choosing Wisely(®) recommendations include: (1) do not anticoagulate for more than 3 months in patients experiencing a first venous thromboembolic event in the setting of major, transient risk factors for venous thromboembolism; (2) do not routinely transfuse for chronic anemia or uncomplicated pain crises in patients with sickle cell disease; (3) do not perform baseline or surveillance computed tomography scans in patients with asymptomatic, early-stage chronic lymphocytic leukemia; (4) do not test or treat for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia if the clinical pretest probability of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is low; and (5) do not treat patients with immune thrombocytopenia unless they are bleeding or have very low platelet counts.

The ASH Choosing Wisely®campaign: five hematologic tests and treatments to question

Choosing Wisely® is a medical stewardship and quality improvement initiative led by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation in collaboration with leading medical societies in the United States. The ASH is an active participant in the Choosing Wisely® project. Using an iterative process and an evidence-based method, ASH has identified 5 tests and treatments that in some circumstances are not well supported by evidence and which in certain cases involve a risk of adverse events and financial costs with low likelihood of benefit. The ASH Choosing Wisely® recommendations focus on avoiding liberal RBC transfusion, avoiding thrombophilia testing in adults in the setting of transient major thrombosis risk factors, avoiding inferior vena cava filter usage except in specified circumstances, avoiding the use of plasma or prothrombin complex concentrate in the nonemergent reversal of vitamin K antagonists, and limiting routine computed tomography surveillance after curative-intent treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. We recommend that clinicians carefully consider anticipated benefits of the identified tests and treatments before performing them.

Dose-intensive chemotherapy with growth factor or autologous bone marrow/stem cell transplant support in first-line treatment of advanced or metastatic adult soft tissue sarcoma: a systematic review.

A systematic review was performed to determine whether first‐line dose‐intensive chemotherapy supported by growth factor or autologous bone marrow/stem cell transplantation improves response rate, time‐to‐disease progression, or survival compared with standard‐dose chemotherapy in patients with inoperable, locally advanced, or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Three randomized trials (2 phase 3, 1 phase 2), 12 phase 2, and 5 phase 1 dose‐escalation trials were located. One randomized trial (N = 314) did not detect significant differences in response rate (P = .65) or survival (log‐rank P = .98) between high‐dose doxorubicin plus ifosfamide with granulocyte macrophage colony‐stimulating factor and doxorubicin plus ifosfamide at standard doses. Progression‐free survival, however, was significantly longer in the high‐dose arm (log‐rank P = .03). Higher rates of thrombocytopenia, infection, grade 3 of 4 asthenia, and stomatitis were observed with high‐dose compared with standard‐dose chemotherapy. Preliminary results from a second randomized trial (N = 162) indicated no benefit with respect to tumor response for an intensified mesna, doxorubicin (Adriamycin), ifosfamide, and dacarbazine regimen with granulocyte colony‐stimulating factor support compared with standard doxorubicin, ifosfamide, and dacarbazine. Grade 4 thrombocytopenia was significantly higher with the high‐dose regimen. Four phase 2 trials of high‐dose regimens observed tumor response rates greater than 50%. Phase 1 trials reported dose‐limiting toxicity for dose‐intensive chemotherapy regimens. On the basis of the available evidence, high‐dose chemotherapy with growth factor or autologous bone marrow/stem cell transplantation should not be used in the routine treatment of patients with inoperable, locally advanced, or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer 2008.

The use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with non-myeloid hematological malignancies: a systematic review.

The effectiveness of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) for the treatment of anemia in patients with non-myeloid hematological malignancies needs to be assessed as the response to their administration is not uniform and their cost is high. We conducted a systematic review (SR) of the literature to identify reports of the effect of ESAs on survival, quality of life (QOL), transfusion requirements, and anemia. The entries to MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, and abstracts published in the proceedings of the annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Hematology were searched. Seventeen reports and five abstracts of randomized trials fulfilled prospective criteria for inclusion. Five trials reported on survival; three failed to detect differences between groups and two demonstrated inferior survival in patients allocated to an ESA. Seven trials and three abstracts reported on QOL with four articles and three abstracts describing improvements in patients allocated to erythropoietin. However, important methodologic limitations were identified in these reports. Seven randomized controlled trials reported a reduction in the proportion of patients transfused. The absolute risk reduction in transfusions ranged from 15% to 24%. This is the only SR that assesses the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents specifically in patients with hematological malignancies. We conclude that available data evaluating ESAs in patients with hematologic malignancies demonstrate that these agents reduce transfusion requirements. Limitations of these data preclude conclusions that these agents improve QOL. More data are required to confirm the inferior survival associated with ESAs.

Yttrium 90 ibritumomab tiuxetan in lymphoma

Radioimmunoconjugates are radioisotope-bound monoclonal antibodies that target radiation specifically to sites of lymphoma involvement. Initial studies of 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan in non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) have suggested benefit in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent disease. However, the routine adoption of this agent is tempered by concerns of associated toxicities and unclear long-term benefit. A comprehensive search for studies on 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan use in lymphoma was completed. The aims of this systematic review were to summarize and evaluate the evidence on: (1) the benefits and risks of this novel therapy; (2) predictors for response and toxicity; and (3) the role of dosimetry and imaging studies prior to treatment. A total of twenty trials investigating the use of 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan for the treatment of adult patients with NHL were identified. In trials of patients with relapsed or refractory indolent NHL, overall response rates ranged from 67 – 83%. In patients with follicular NHL refractory to the monoclonal antibody, rituximab, response rates remained high (74%). However, in rituximab-naïve patients with relapsed or refractory indolent or transformed NHL, the higher response rate seen with 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan therapy compared to rituximab monotherapy has not translated into clear improvements in time-to-progression or survival. 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan is an active agent in relapsed and refractory non-Hodgkins lymphoma that should be considered in select patients.

Bortezomib in multiple myeloma: a practice guideline.

AIMS Bortezomib (Velcade™, PS-341), a first-in-class proteasome inhibitor, has been extensively studied either alone or in combination with other agents for the treatment of multiple myeloma. We created a provincial guideline for the use of bortezomib, in newly diagnosed individuals (both eligible and ineligible for transplant) and in individuals with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic review was conducted searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and relevant meeting abstracts. Outcomes of interest were survival, disease control, response rate, response duration, quality of life and adverse effects. Members of the Cancer Care Ontario Hematology Disease Site Group (CCO HDSG), comprising physicians with content expertise, epidemiologists and consumers, developed a guideline through a systematic process that involved assessment of the best available evidence, consensus interpretation of the evidence and a validation process involving practitioners across the province. RESULTS The CCO HDSG recommends the use of bortezomib-based combinations in previously untreated patients with multiple myeloma who are candidates for autologous stem cell transplantation and in individuals who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplantation. The group further recommends the use of bortezomib, alone or in combination, for patients with relapsed/refractory disease. The evidence did not establish a subgroup of patients with myeloma that should be uniquely targeted for therapy with bortezomib. Qualifying statements by the HDSG address alternative dosing options, the management of cytopenias and the prevention of toxicities, including herpes zoster reactivation. CONCLUSIONS Bortezomib alone or in combination with other agents can be recommended for both previously untreated or relapsed/refractory patients with multiple myeloma. Guidelines for monitoring and reducing toxicity are provided.