Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Sandipkumar Patel x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Full access

Sandipkumar H. Patel, Sumithira Vasu, Ling Guo, Olivia Lemaster, John C. Byrd, and Alison Walker

Acute undifferentiated leukemia (AUL) is a subtype of acute leukemias of ambiguous lineage. There is no standard treatment approach for AUL, although acute lymphoblastic leukemia–like regimens for induction therapy have been used. Additional data suggest that AUL may be better treated as acute myeloid leukemia (AML), given their similarities in genetic, cytogenetic, and gene expression patterns. Somatic mutations of IDH1 are found in 7% to 14% of patients with AML; however, the patient in this study was the first patient with IDH1-mutated AUL treated with ivosidenib. In this case, a woman aged 39 years was found to have anemia and thrombocytopenia after presenting to her primary care physician with fatigue, weight loss, and persistent infections. During further workup of the cytopenia, she was diagnosed with AUL and received 7+3 (daunorubicin, 60 mg/m2/d intravenously on days 1–3, and cytarabine, 100 mg/m2 24-hour continuous intravenous infusion on days 1–7) due to the presence of the IDH1 mutation. Bone marrow biopsy performed on day 14 of 7+3 showed persistent disease, and ivosidenib was initiated due to severe HLA alloimmunization (panel-reactive antibody, 100%) and significant bleeding complications. The patient achieved a complete morphologic and molecular remission on ivosidenib monotherapy despite critical bleeding complications during induction. Targeted therapy using ivosidenib may represent an encouraging therapeutic option in patients with AUL and IDH1 mutations. Additional evaluation of ivosidenib in this subgroup of patients with AUL is needed.

Full access

Angel Qin, Songzhu Zhao, Abdul Miah, Lai Wei, Sandipkumar Patel, Andrew Johns, Madison Grogan, Erin M. Bertino, Kai He, Peter G. Shields, Gregory P. Kalemkerian, Shirish M. Gadgeel, Nithya Ramnath, Bryan J. Schneider, Khaled A. Hassan, Nicholas Szerlip, Zoey Chopra, Sara Journey, Jessica Waninger, Daniel Spakowicz, David P. Carbone, Carolyn J. Presley, Gregory A. Otterson, Michael D. Green, and Dwight H. Owen

Background: Bone metastases and skeletal-related events (SREs) are a frequent cause of morbidity in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Data are limited on bone metastases and SREs in patients with mNSCLC treated using immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and on the efficacy of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in this setting. Here we report the incidence, impact on survival, risk factors for bone metastases and SREs, and impact of BMAs in patients with mNSCLC treated with ICIs in a multi-institutional cohort. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with mNSCLC treated with ICIs at 2 tertiary care centers from 2014 through 2017. Overall survival (OS) was compared between patients with and without baseline bone metastases using a log-rank test. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate the association between OS and the presence of bone metastases at ICI initiation, controlling for other confounding factors. Results: We identified a cohort of 330 patients who had received ICIs for metastatic disease. Median patient age was 63 years, most patients were treated in the second line or beyond (n=259; 78%), and nivolumab was the most common ICI (n=211; 64%). Median OS was 10 months (95% CI, 8.4–12.0). In our cohort, 124 patients (38%) had baseline bone metastases, and 43 (13%) developed SREs during or after ICI treatment. Patients with bone metastases had a higher hazard of death after controlling for performance status, histology, line of therapy, and disease burden (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.19–2.08; P=.001). Use of BMAs was not associated with OS or a decreased risk of SREs. Conclusions: Presence of bone metastases at baseline was associated with a worse prognosis for patients with mNSCLC treated with ICI after controlling for multiple clinical characteristics. Use of BMAs was not associated with reduced SREs or a difference in survival.