Lisa K. Hicks

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.

Hepatitis B Virus Screening Before Chemotherapy for Lymphoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

PURPOSE Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation is a potentially fatal complication of chemotherapy that can be largely prevented with antiviral prophylaxis. It remains unclear whether HBV screening is cost effective. METHODS A decision model was developed to compare the clinical outcomes, costs, and cost effectiveness of three HBV screening strategies for patients with lymphoma before R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) chemotherapy: screen all patients for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg; Screen-All), screen patients identified as being at high risk for HBV infection (Screen-HR), and screen no one (Screen-None). Patients testing positive were administered antiviral therapy until 6 months after completion of chemotherapy. Those not screened were initiated on antiviral therapy only if HBV hepatitis occurred. Probabilities of HBV and lymphoma outcomes were derived from systematic literature review. A third-party payer perspective was adopted, costs were expressed in 2011 Canadian dollars, and a 1-year time horizon was used. RESULTS Screen-All was the dominant strategy. It was least costly at

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

32,589, compared with

Cancer Mortality Among Recipients of Solid-Organ Transplantation in Ontario, Canada

32,598 for Screen-HR and

Hepatitis B reactivation in HBsAg‐negative/HBcAb‐positive patients receiving rituximab for lymphoma: a meta‐analysis

32,657 for Screen-None. It was also associated with the highest 1-year survival rate at 84.99%, compared with 84.96% for Screen-HR and 84.86% for Screen-None. The analysis was sensitive to the prevalence of HBsAg positivity in the low-risk population, with Screen-HR becoming least costly when this value was ≤ 0.20%. CONCLUSION In patients receiving R-CHOP for lymphoma, screening all patients for HBV reduces the rate of HBV reactivation (10-fold) and is less costly than screening only high-risk patients or screening no patients.

Five hematologic tests and treatments to question

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.

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

IMPORTANCE Solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are at greater risk of developing some cancers than the general population; however, because they are also at increased risk of mortality from noncancer causes, the effect of transplantation on cancer mortality is unclear. OBJECTIVE To describe cancer mortality in SOTRs and to assess whether SOTRs are at increased risk of cancer mortality compared with the general population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Population-based cohort study of patients who underwent solid-organ transplantation in Ontario, Canada, between 1991 and 2010 with 85 557 person-years of follow-up through December 31, 2011. Solid-organ transplantation was identified using the national transplant register and linked to the provincial cancer registry and administrative databases. The analysis was conducted between November 2013 and February 2015. EXPOSURE Solid-organ transplantation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Cancer mortality for SOTRs was compared with that of the general population using standardized mortality ratios (SMRs). Mortality and cause of death were ascertained by record linkage between the Canadian Organ Replacement Register, the Ontario Cancer Registry, and the Office of the Registrar General of Ontario death database. RESULTS A total of 11 061 SOTRs were identified, including 6516 kidney, 2606 liver, 929 heart, and 705 lung transplantations. Recipients had a median (interquartile range) age of 49 (37-58) years, and 4004 (36.2%) were women. Of 3068 deaths, 603 (20%) were cancer related. Cancer mortality in SOTRs was significantly elevated compared with the Ontario population (SMR, 2.84 [95% CI, 2.61-3.07]). The risk remained elevated when patients with pretransplant malignant neoplasms (n = 1124) were excluded (SMR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.75-2.13]). The increased risk was observed irrespective of transplanted organ. The SMR for cancer death after solid-organ transplantation was higher in children (SMR, 84.61 [95% CI, 52.00-128.40]) and lower in patients older than 60 years (SMR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.62-2.18]) but remained elevated compared with the general population at all ages. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Cancer death rate in SOTRs was increased compared with that expected in the general population; cancer was the second leading cause of death in these patients. Advances in prevention, clinical surveillance, and cancer treatment modalities for SOTRs are needed to reduce the burden of cancer mortality in this population.

HIV-Associated Burkitt Lymphoma: Good Efficacy and Tolerance of Intensive Chemotherapy Including CODOX-M/IVAC with or without Rituximab in the HAART Era

Patients with chronic hepatitis B (HBsAg‐positive) are at risk of viral reactivation if rituximab is administered without antiviral treatment, a potentially fatal complication of treatment. Patients with so‐called ‘resolved hepatitis B virus infection’ (HBsAg‐negative/cAb‐positive) may also be at risk. We performed a systematic review of the English and Chinese language literature to estimate the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in HBsAg‐negative/cAb‐positive patients receiving rituximab for lymphoma. A pooled risk estimate was calculated for HBV reactivation. The impact of HBsAb status and study design on reactivation rates was explored. Data from 578 patients in 15 studies were included. ‘Clinical HBV reactivation’, (ALT >3 × normal and either an increase in HBV DNA from baseline or HBsAg seroreversion), was estimated at 6.3% (I2 = 63%, P = 0.006). Significant heterogeneity was detected. Reactivation rates were higher in prospective vs retrospective studies (14.2% vs 3.8%; OR = 4.39, 95% CI 0.83–23.28). Exploratory analyses found no effect of HBsAb status on reactivation risk (OR = 0.083; P = 0.151). Our meta‐analysis confirms a measurable and potentially substantial risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg‐negative/cAb‐positive patients exposed to rituximab. However, heterogeneity in the existing literature limits the generalizability of our findings. Large, prospective studies, with uniform definitions of HBV reactivation, are needed to clarify the risk of HBV reactivation in HBsAg‐negative/cAb‐positive patients.

Incidence, predictors and significance of severe toxicity in patients with human immunodeficiency virus-associated Hodgkin lymphoma

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.

Poor Recognition of Risk Factors for Hepatitis B by Physicians Prescribing Immunosuppressive Therapy: A Call for Universal Rather than Risk-Based Screening

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.