No abstract

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire world. Health systems have been affected in such a way that patients with diseases other than COVID-19 have suffered serious consequences. In Latin America, the disease has emerged in a fragile system with more disparities, making our patients more vulnerable. Acute leukemia patients have a high risk of severe COVID-19 disease. Various expert recommendations have emerged with the aim of minimizing the risk of COVID-19 without affecting leukemia-related outcomes. However, multiple logistical issues tangentially associated with the pandemic have also appeared, potentially limiting the quality of management of these patients. The objective of this study was to register treatment modifications associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and its short-term consequences in Latin American countries. Methods We included patients older than 14 years, from 14 centers of 4 Latin American countries (Mexico, Peru, Guatemala and Panama), with the diagnosis of acute leukemia, who were on active treatment since the first case of COVID-19 was documented in each country. We documented their baseline characteristics and followed the patients prospectively until July 15, were data-cutoff for this pre-planned analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the incidence of COVID-19 disease and its complications. Secondary outcomes included treatment and consult modifications, and cause of death during the study period. Logistic regression was performed to determine factors associated with COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. Results We recorded the information of 635 patients: 58.1% Ph-negative ALL, 25.7% AML, 9% APL and 7.2% Ph+ALL. The median age was 35 years (14-90 years); 58.8% were consideredf high-risk patients. The majority were on CR (68.3%) receiving consolidation or maintenance therapy, while 14.5% were newly diagnosed and 17.2% with relapsed/refractory disease. The majority (91.8%) were treated in centers that were also receiving COVID-19 patients, 40.2% in centers were patients could not be electively hospitalized for leukemia treatment because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The COVID-pandemic led to treatment-modifications in 40.8% of the cases. Reasons for modifications were associated with logistical issues (22.4%), medical decisions (15.1%) or patient choice (3.3%). The most frequent modification was chemotherapy delay (17.3%) followed by regimen modification (13.4%) and dose-reductions (10.1%). (Figure 1) 83 patients (13.1%) developed COVID-19 disease, the majority mild-moderate disease (54.2%), 27.7% severe disease and 18.1% critically ill; 27.7% required mechanical ventilation and 37.7% died from COVID-19 disease, representing 4.9% of the entire cohort. We identify as risk factors for COVID-19 disease the presence of active leukemia (newly diagnosed or relapsed) (OR 3.46 [95% CI: 2.16-5.5], p<0.001), high-risk leukemia (OR 1.63 [95% CI: 1.54-4.52], p<0.001) and being treated in a center were elective hospitalization was possible (OR 2.17 [95% CI 1.29-3.67], p=0.004). Treatment modifications, appointment prolongations or the use of virtual consultation were not associated with a reduction in the risk of COVID-19. On the other hand, 16.7% of patients died during period analyzed due to leukemia (57.5%), COVID-19 (29.2%) or treatment related-mortality (13.2%). Independent factors associated with mortality were AML vs. ALL (OR 1.89 [95% CI: 1.12-3.18], p=0.016), relapsed-refractory disease (OR 8.34 [95% CI: 4.83-14.41], p<0.001), induction/consolidation vs. maintenance therapy (OR 2.20 [95% CI: 1.25-3.18], p<0.001) and the use of virtual consultation (OR 0.35 [95% CI: 0.13-0.94] p=0.037). (Table 1) Discussion/Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant modifications in the standard of care treatment of patients with acute leukemia. The incidence of COVID-19 disease in acute leukemia patients was considerable and more than a third of the patients with acute leukemia and COVID-19 disease died. Despite a short-follow up, 16.7% of the patients died and leukemia-related deaths were the most frequent. In low- and middle-income countries with fragile health systems, the collateral damage for patients with acute leukemia may be just as important as the direct consequences of COVID-19. Disclosures Alvarado: Roche: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Speakers Bureau. De la Peña-Celaya:Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Perez:Roche: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Gomez-Almaguer:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is frequent in Mexico, representing 51% of acute leukemia in adults. Hispanic ethnicity is associated with high-risk features and poor outcomes. We previously reported a multicenter experience in Mexico, where the majority of our ALL-patients (67%) were adolescents and young adults (AYA), mostly treated with HyperCVAD and with poor outcomes: 3-year overall survival (OS) of 25.7%. Many groups have demonstrated better outcomes with pediatric-inspired regimens (PIR) in the AYA-group, with long term OS > 60%. In 2016-2017 we changed the standard of care from HyperCVAD to PIR in two of the centers from the previously mentioned study. Methods We included AYA-patients with the diagnosis of Philadelphia-negative ALL treated with PIR (ALL-BFM 90 or CALGB 10403) between March 2016 and June 2019 in two centers in Mexico City. Both regimens were modified from the original: we used E. Coli asparaginase instead of pegaspargase and mercaptopurine instead of thioguanine. We compared these patients with our common historic database of patients with the same characteristics diagnosed between February 2009 and June 2015, treated with HyperCVAD. Hyperleukocytosis was defined as a white blood cell count > 30 x103/mcL for B-cell ALL and > 100 x103/mcL for T-cell ALL. Patients with t(v;11q23), hypodyploid or complex karyotype were considered high-risk. Baseline characteristics of both groups were compared with Chi-square or Mann-Whitney U test. We estimate OS by Kaplan-Meier method and compared groups by log-rank test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate independent prognostic factors associated with OS. Results We compared 73 patients treated with PIR with a control group of 137 patients treated with HyperCVAD. The patients treated with PIR received either ALL-BFM 90 (N=46) or CALGB 10403(N=27). The median follow-up was 49.8, 23.3 and 12.7 months for HyperCVAD, ALL-BFM 90 and CALGB 10403 respectively. Patients treated with PIR were slightly older than those in the control group (median 24 vs. 20 years, p=0.005) and presented with high-risk karyotype more frequently (31.9% vs. 12.2%, p=0.042). Most of the patients were B-cell ALL (91.8% for PIR and 95.6% for HyperCVAD; p=0.349). Comparing PIR vs. HyperCVAD, there were no differences in the proportion of patients with hyperleukocytosis (33.3% vs. 25.0%, p=0.128) or obesity (24.7% vs. 16.4%, p=0.192). The induction related mortality was 5.7% for the entire group with a trend that favors PIR (1.4% vs. 8.0%, p=0.061). In patients treated with PIR, the 4-week complete remission (CR) rate was higher (79.5% vs. 64.2%, p=0.027) and the relapse rate was lower (41.5% vs. 60.0%, p=0.027). Patients treated with PIR were more frequently treated with allogeneic stem-cell transplant (alloSCT) in first CR: 19.2% vs. 7.3%, p=0.017. The median OS was significantly higher with PIR than with HyperCVAD, with a median of 19.0 months (3.3-25.4 months) vs. 11.1 months (7.3-14.8 months), and a 18-month OS of 53% vs. 33%, p=0.017. When comparing the two different PIR (ALL-BFM 90 vs. CALGB 10403), the patients treated with ALL-BFM 90 had more frequently high-risk karyotypes (46% vs. 10.5%, p=0.012). Both regimens were associated with similar 4-week CR rate (78.3% vs. 81.5%, p=1). OS was higher with the CALGB 10403 with an 18 month-OS of 79% vs. 42% with the ALL-BFM 90 (p=0.044). When adjusted for high-risk karyotype, the benefit on OS was no longer significant. In the multivariate analysis for OS, the independent significant prognostic factors were: treatment with a PIR (HR 0.428, 95% CI 0.221-0.826, p=0.011), alloSCT in first CR (HR 0.316, 95% CI 0.106-0.938, p=0.038) and high-risk karyotype (HR 2.695 95% CI 1.272-5.560, p=0.009). Discussion Although different groups have shown the benefit of PIR in the AYA-patients, the MD Anderson group couldn´t found any benefit from using the augmented BFM when compared to HyperCVAD. In our experience, the outcomes with HyperCVAD are poor in this group. In this report, the treatment with PIR was associated with a higher CR rate, lower relapse rate and better OS when compared with our historical HyperCVAD in AYA-patients. The benefit on survival was independent of other risk factors or alloHSCT. The main limitation of the study is the comparison with a historical group. However, given the general trend to treat these patients with RIP, a prospective randomized study in this regard is unlikely. Disclosures Demichelis: Abbvie: Speakers Bureau; AMGEN: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau.