At @ASH_hematology#ASH22 highlights I am being told some transplanters are refusing to do #AlloHSCT for otherwise eligible #AMLSm younger pts in CR because of bialleic #TP53 +MRD, I don’t think this is acceptable. Counsel on poor outcomes but there is a tail at end of OS curve
Even if it 10%. I anecdotally had few pts who lived for years post transplant going in with TP53 bialleic complex type & MRD+ CR. I don’t think you should deprive pt only possibly of cure just to try to eradicate pre-allo MRD which often does not occur with any pre-transplant tx
Give MAC & throw in early maintenance & hope GVL effect kicks in before relapse. We have to be humble about how we council using data. Encourage trials of novel agents, counsel patients honestly, if older pt who can’t get MAC then maybe discourage transplant not in younger pt
For an #AMLsm patient who is 58 yr old with a donor & otherwise eligible for Allogeneic transplant & achieved CR with CPX-351 liposomal Ara-C/Daunorubicin but had persistent MRD with bialleic #TP53 /Complex karyotype after induction & no access to trial, what do you recommend?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Few things NOT to do when asking for a research rotation/position: 1) Don’t mass email, especially with cc in same email—it is a turnoff when many people cced, or if we forward email to a colleagues to see if they can help & find out same mass email has been sent to many
2) Proof read your email multiple times, & especially if you are not native English speaker, ask someone who is to proof read before you send. Spelling, grammar and especially multiple errors can be a kiss of death for many investigators
3) individualize the introduction of your email, make sure to start with dear NAME, not dear doctor etc. introduce yourself but quickly mention why you are contacting this particular researcher. Avoid generic language like “great research” or citing one random paper as reason
Reflections on Twitter debates regarding clinical trials 1) No one disagrees that the way clinical trials in Oncology are designed/conducted leaves much to be desired with many inefficiencies & problems. However as often is the case, change will only happen from within the system
2) Change is often incremental & an evolution & not a revolution, & it requires active participation from all stakeholders. While industry bears some blame, we should remember their primary responsibility (even if they say otherwise) is to their shareholders & not to patients
3) We also should remember the current process has led to significant & unprecedented improvements in cure & survival for many patients & cancers, but granted much needs to be done especially for metastatic cancers. So rather than dismantling it, the focus should be on fixing it
Investigator-initiated trials should receive more recognition by academia. The time & effort that go into getting funding, designing, conducting, & maintaining compliance are enormous. Still they get judged based mostly on clinical results & often wind up in low-impact journals.
Many reviewers & journals do not seem to manage their expectations or recognize the difference between papers describing a clinical trial conducted and written by an army of industry personnel and medical writers compared to an IIT that was run on limited resources and personnel
It is challenging to get non-FDA novel/promising agents that are still in early clinical testing because industry often does not want to jeopardize regulatory approval path for drugs by having clinical trials done outside of their direct control or potential new toxicity signals.