Frequency and impact of grade three or four toxicities of novel agents on outcomes of older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (alliance A151611)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2018.03.018Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

Older patients with cancer suffer from chemotherapy-related toxicities more frequently than younger patients. As novel agents are being used more commonly in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), toxicities of these agents in older patients have not been well studied. Further, impact of these toxicities on outcomes in the elderly is unknown. This study aimed to answer both questions.

Patients and Methods

We reviewed 14 Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials that enrolled CLL and/or NHL patients between 2004–2014. Toxicity was assessed per the NCI-CTCAE (version 3–5). Probabilities of experiencing grade three or four hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities were modeled as a function of clinical and disease-related factors using logistic regression.

Results

1199 patients (409 age ≥ 65; 790 age < 65) were analyzed; 438 received only biologic therapy (145 age ≥ 65; 293 age < 65), and 761 received biologic + chemotherapy (264 age ≥ 65; 497 age < 65). The odds of grade three or four hematologic [odds ratio (OR) 1.70; p = 0.009: 95% CI (1.57–1.84)] and non-hematologic toxicities [OR 1.47; p = 0.022; 95% CI (1.39–1.55)] were increased in older patients with CLL, as well as odds of grade three or four non-hematologic toxicities [OR 1.89; p = 0.017; 95% CI (1.64–2.17)] in older patients with NHL. Grade three or four hematologic toxicities were associated with inferior OS and PFS in older patients with NHL [HR 3.14; p = 0.006; 95% CI (2.25–4.39) for OS and 3.06; p = 0.011; 95% CI (2.10–4.45) for PFS], though not in CLL. A prognostic model predicting grade three or four toxicities was also developed.

Conclusions

CLL and NHL patients ≥ 65 year encounter more toxicities than younger patients even when treated with novel biologic agents. Development of grade three or four hematologic toxicities lead to inferior PFS and OS in NHL but not in CLL.

Introduction

Advanced age is associated with increased incidence of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), with a median age of diagnosis >65 for both [1]. Chemoimmunotherapy has markedly improved outcomes in patients with CLL/NHL, but despite advances, older age has consistently been shown to be associated with poorer outcomes [2,3]. Older patients usually present with different characteristics, including increased cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities, and have worse outcomes than their younger counterparts, possibly due to an inability to tolerate cytotoxic therapy, potential under-treatment, and sequelae of aging itself [[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]].

Models have been constructed to identify the risk of chemotherapy toxicity in older patients with cancer. A model employing geriatric assessment variables, laboratory test values, histologies, and treatment characteristics was developed to predict grade three through five toxicities in patients age 65 and older treated with chemotherapy [10]. However, <6% of patients in this model had hematologic malignancies, underscoring the need for predictive models designed specifically for hematologic cancers. The increasing use of novel agents in CLL and NHL provides different toxicities than what is encountered with traditional chemotherapy and need to be studied. The frequency of these toxicities and how they might influence outcomes have not been adequately studied.

We aimed to better understand the frequency of toxicities in older patients treated with novel agents for CLL and NHL. Moreover, we sought to assess the degree to which toxicity affected overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) among these patients.

Section snippets

Patients and Methods

We utilized data collected by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology to: 1) compare the frequency of toxicities between older (≥65 years old) and younger (<65 years old) patients, 2) model OS and PFS of patients as a function of toxicity of treatment with novel drugs including biologic combinations, monoclonal antibodies, cell cycle inhibitors, chemoimmunotherapy, and immunomodulators, and 3) identify characteristics which may help determine a patient's risk of experiencing toxicities

Patients' Characteristics

A total of 1199 patients (409 age ≥ 65; 790 age < 65) were analyzed. Among these patients, 438 received only novel agents therapy (145 age ≥ 65; 293; age < 65), and 761 received novel agents + chemotherapy (264 age ≥ 65; 497 age < 65). Baseline characteristics for patients with CLL and NHL are described in Table 1, Table 2, respectively.

Toxicities

Overall, 68% of patients with CLL and 35% of patients with NHL experienced at least one grade three or four hematologic toxicity. For non-hematologic

Discussion

The results of this multicenter analysis of prospective studies conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Group suggest that, compared to younger patients, older adults with CLL treated with novel agents may have increased odds of both grade three or four hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities and that older adults with NHL treated with novel agents may have greater odds for grade three or four non-hematologic toxicity. Also, hematologic, but not non-hematologic, toxicities

Author Contributions

Study Concept: J. Foster, D. Seisler, J. Lafky, S.H. Jung, M. Tallarico, C. Nabhan.

Study Design: J. Foster, D. Seisler, C. Nabhan, M. Tallarico, H. Cohen.

Data Acquisition: J. Foster, D. Seisler.

Quality Control of Data and Algorithms: J. Foster, Seizer.

Data Analysis and Interpretation: J. Foster, D. Seisler, N. Bartlett, S.H. Jung, C. Nabhan, M. Tallarico, B. Cheson, H. Cohen.

Statistical Analysis: J. Foster, H. Muss, D. Seisler, S.H. Jung, C. Nabhan, M. Tallarico, H. Cohen.

Manuscript

Disclosures and Conflict of Interest Statements

Advisory Boards: Bartlett, KITE, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics; Cheson, Roche-Genentech, Celgene, Pharmacyclics, Gilead.

Research Funding: Jatoi, NIH; Cheson, Roche-Genentech, Celgene, Pharmacyclics.

Support

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the Award Numbers UG1CA189823 (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology NCORP Grant), U10CA180790, U10CA180833, U10CA180836, U10CA180838, U10CA180850, and U10CA180857. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Acknowledgements

John Byrd.

References (37)

  • K. Aoki et al.

    Efficacy and tolerability of reduced-dose 21-day cycle rituximab and cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone therapy for elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

    Leuk Lymphoma

    (2013)
  • B. Hoerni et al.

    Non-Hodgkin's malignant lymphomas in patients older than 80: 70 cases

    Cancer

    (1988)
  • S. Latta et al.

    Diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the very elderly: challenges and solutions

    Oncology

    (2013)
  • H. Gomez et al.

    Elderly patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with CHOP chemotherapy plus granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor: identification of two age subgroups with differing hematologic toxicity

    J Clin Oncol

    (1998)
  • I.J. Neilly et al.

    High grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the elderly—12 year experience in the Grampian Region of Scotland

    Hematol Oncol

    (1995)
  • Arti Hurria et al.

    Predicting chemotherapy toxicity in older adults with cancer: a prospective multicenter study

    J Clin Oncol

    (2011)
  • L.F. Hutchins et al.

    Underrepresentation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials

    N Engl J Med

    (1999)
  • L. Talarico et al.

    Enrollment of elderly patients in clinical trials for cancer drug registration: a 7-year experience by the US Food and Drug Administration

    J Clin Oncol

    (2004)
  • Cited by (5)

    Presented in part as an oral session at the Annual American Society of Hematology meeting in December 2016 San Diego, CA.

    View full text