The prognosis for patients with newly diagnosed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has improved with the use of more intensive chemotherapy regimens, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, targeted agents, and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. However, the management of relapsed or refractory (R/R) ALL remains challenging and prognosis is poor. The NCCN Guidelines for ALL provide recommendations on standard treatment approaches based on current evidence. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize treatment recommendations for R/R ALL and highlight important updates, and provide a summary of the panel's discussion and underlying data supporting the most recent recommendations for R/R ALL management.
Patrick A. Brown, Bijal Shah, Amir Fathi, Matthew Wieduwilt, Anjali Advani, Patricia Aoun, Stefan K. Barta, Michael W. Boyer, Teresa Bryan, Patrick W. Burke, Ryan Cassaday, Peter F. Coccia, Steven E. Coutre, Lloyd E. Damon, Daniel J. DeAngelo, Olga Frankfurt, John P. Greer, Hagop M. Kantarjian, Rebecca B. Klisovic, Gary Kupfer, Mark Litzow, Arthur Liu, Ryan Mattison, Jae Park, Jeffrey Rubnitz, Ayman Saad, Geoffrey L. Uy, Eunice S. Wang, Kristina M. Gregory, and Ndiya Ogba
Joseph C. Alvarnas, Patrick A. Brown, Patricia Aoun, Karen Kuhn Ballen, Stefan K. Barta, Uma Borate, Michael W. Boyer, Patrick W. Burke, Ryan Cassaday, Januario E. Castro, Peter F. Coccia, Steven E. Coutre, Lloyd E. Damon, Daniel J. DeAngelo, Dan Douer, Olga Frankfurt, John P. Greer, Robert A. Johnson, Hagop M. Kantarjian, Rebecca B. Klisovic, Gary Kupfer, Mark Litzow, Arthur Liu, Arati V. Rao, Bijal Shah, Geoffrey L. Uy, Eunice S. Wang, Andrew D. Zelenetz, Kristina Gregory, and Courtney Smith
Treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) continues to advance, as evidenced by the improved risk stratification of patients and development of newer treatment options. Identification of ALL subtypes based on immunophenotyping and cytogenetic and molecular markers has resulted in the inclusion of Philadelphia-like ALL and early T-cell precursor ALL as subtypes that affect prognosis. Identification of Ikaros mutations has also emerged as a prognostic factor. In addition to improved prognostication, treatment options for patients with ALL have expanded, particularly with regard to relapsed/refractory ALL. Continued development of second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors and the emergence of immunotherapy, including blinatumomab and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, have improved survival. Furthermore, incorporation of minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring has shown insight into patient outcomes and may lead to treatment modification or alternative treatment strategies in select populations. This excerpt focuses on the sections of the ALL guidelines specific to clinical presentation and diagnosis, treatment of relapsed/refractory ALL, and incorporation of MRD monitoring. To view the most recent complete version of these guidelines, visit NCCN.org.
Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines
Patrick A. Brown, Matthew Wieduwilt, Aaron Logan, Daniel J. DeAngelo, Eunice S. Wang, Amir Fathi, Ryan D. Cassaday, Mark Litzow, Anjali Advani, Patricia Aoun, Bhavana Bhatnagar, Michael W. Boyer, Teresa Bryan, Patrick W. Burke, Peter F. Coccia, Steven E. Coutre, Nitin Jain, Suzanne Kirby, Arthur Liu, Stephanie Massaro, Ryan J. Mattison, Olalekan Oluwole, Nikolaos Papadantonakis, Jae Park, Jeffrey E. Rubnitz, Geoffrey L. Uy, Kristina M. Gregory, Ndiya Ogba, and Bijal Shah
Survival outcomes for older adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) are poor and optimal management is challenging due to higher-risk leukemia genetics, comorbidities, and lower tolerance to intensive therapy. A critical understanding of these factors guides the selection of frontline therapies and subsequent treatment strategies. In addition, there have been recent developments in minimal/measurable residual disease (MRD) testing and blinatumomab use in the context of MRD-positive disease after therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for ALL regarding upfront therapy in older adults and MRD monitoring/testing in response to ALL treatment.
Camilla Zimmermann, Ashley Pope, Breffni Hannon, Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Gary Rodin, Madeline Li, Doris Howell, Jennifer J. Knox, Natasha B. Leighl, Srikala Sridhar, Amit M. Oza, Rebecca Prince, Stephanie Lheureux, Aaron R. Hansen, Anne Rydall, Brittany Chow, Leonie Herx, Christopher M. Booth, Deborah Dudgeon, Neesha Dhani, Geoffrey Liu, Philippe L. Bedard, Jean Mathews, Nadia Swami, and Lisa W. Le
Background: Routine early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life (QoL) for patients with advanced cancer, but it may not be necessary for all patients. We assessed the feasibility of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) in a phase II trial. Methods: Patients with advanced cancer were recruited from medical oncology clinics. Symptoms were screened at each visit using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESAS-r); moderate to severe scores (screen-positive) triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who called the patient and offered EPC. Patient-reported outcomes of QoL, depression, symptom control, and satisfaction with care were measured at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The primary aim was to determine feasibility, according to predefined criteria. Secondary aims were to assess whether STEP identified patients with worse patient-reported outcomes and whether screen-positive patients who accepted and received EPC had better outcomes over time than those who did not receive EPC. Results: In total, 116 patients were enrolled, of which 89 (77%) completed screening for ≥70% of visits. Of the 70 screen-positive patients, 39 (56%) received EPC during the 6-month study and 4 (6%) received EPC after the study end. Measure completion was 76% at 2 months, 68% at 4 months, and 63% at 6 months. Among screen-negative patients, QoL, depression, and symptom control were substantially better than for screen-positive patients at baseline (all P<.0001) and remained stable over time. Among screen-positive patients, mood and symptom control improved over time for those who accepted and received EPC and worsened for those who did not receive EPC (P<.01 for trend over time), with no difference in QoL or satisfaction with care. Conclusions: STEP is feasible in ambulatory patients with advanced cancer and distinguishes between patients who remain stable without EPC and those who benefit from targeted EPC. Acceptance of the triggered EPC visit should be encouraged.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04044040.