Late effects of treatment in lymphoma survivors
Download
1 / 41

Late Effects of Treatment in Lymphoma Survivors - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 184 Views
  • Uploaded on

Late Effects of Treatment in Lymphoma Survivors. Adam Gibb Clinical Research Fellow The Christie 2010. Importance, Nature and Incidence. Why are Late Effects Important?. Because there are more survivors! Increasing cure rates with modern therapies

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Late Effects of Treatment in Lymphoma Survivors' - quang


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Late effects of treatment in lymphoma survivors

Late Effects of Treatment in Lymphoma Survivors

Adam Gibb

Clinical Research Fellow

The Christie

2010



Why are late effects important
Why are Late Effects Important?

  • Because there are more survivors!

  • Increasing cure rates with modern therapies

  • Increasing incidence of HL/NHL as the demographic shift occurs in an ageing population

  • Increasing interest in this group:


Why are late effects important1
Why are Late Effects Important?

  • NHSI Cancer Survivorship Initiative

  • Cancer Reform Strategy 2007

  • Patient Groups-

    • Lymphoma Association

  • Other Charities-

    • British Heart Foundation

    • Cancer Research UK

  • Patients themselves


Survivors
Survivors…

  • Are not as well as age-matched controls

  • Want more information about life after cancer

  • Need to know how to seek help and advice

  • The experience of cancer and the treatment needed will have some impact on quality of life for 25-50% of patients

  • Between 5-20% of people say this has had a major impact on their quality of life


Who gets them
Who Gets Them?

  • Long term survivors of aggressive lymphomas

  • They will have been cured with a variety of different treatments

  • All of these carry risks for the future


Background curable lymphomas
Background: Curable Lymphomas

  • Diffuse Large B-Cell NHL (~50%)

  • Hodgkin Lymphoma (50-95%)

  • Burkitt’s Lymphoma (70%)

  • Rarer aggressive sub-types (some T-cells, rarely mantle cell, <30%)


Background some numbers
Background: Some Numbers

  • NHL

    • Approx 9500 new cases of NHL/year

    • Approx 3000 are aggressive/curable

    • Therefore ~1500 long-term survivors

    • Median age ~60

  • Hodgkin Lymphoma

    • Approx 1500 cases/year

    • >1000 survivors generated

    • Median age 29


Background curative therapies
Background: Curative Therapies

  • R-CHOP:

    • Rituximab/cyclofosfamide/ doxorubicin/vincristine/ prednisolone

  • ABVD:

    • doxorubicin/bleomycin/vinblastinedacarbazine


Background curative therapies1
Background: Curative Therapies

  • Radiotherapy:

    • curative in Stage 1a disease, used as consolidation in HL, bulky disease, v.aggressive tumours

  • Stem Cell Transplantation:

    • high doses of chemo (BEAM, fludarabine), graft-versus-host disease, total body irradiation


What are the late effects
What are the Late effects?

  • Many and varied!

  • Definitions a bit controversial:

    • When is a treatment-related problem ‘late’ as opposed to ‘early’

    • Sterility/fertility is a good example

  • Most would call problems >5 years out as ‘late’


Categories
Categories

  • Psychosocial

  • Cardiac

  • Pulmonary

  • Endocrine

  • Second Cancers

  • Bone Marrow


Psychosocial
Psychosocial

  • Difficulty obtaining jobs, mortgages, life insurance

  • Depression

  • Fear for/of the future

  • Relationship problems


Cardiac
Cardiac

  • Anthracyclines (doxorubicin, epirubicin) known to be cardiotoxic

  • As is supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy

  • More recently, vinca alkaloids (vincristine, vinblastine) also found to be associated with cardiotoxicity

  • This has been confirmed in a recent study:


Cardiac1
Cardiac

  • 7033 Hodgkin disease patients who were treated in Britain from 1967 through 2000 were studied

  • A total of 166 deaths from myocardial infarction

  • Standardized mortality ratio (SMR)= 2.5 x age-matched controls

  • Risk was particularly high for patients treated with the ABVD regimen (SMR = 9.5)

  • Swerdlow et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Feb 7;99(3):206-14.


Pulmonary
Pulmonary

  • Major effect is increased risk of Ca Lung

  • Risk increased by:

    • MOPP chemo (now not used)

    • Radiotherapy to the thorax, esp. ‘Mantle Field’

    • Tobacco smoking multiplies the risk

  • Relative risk (RR) varies from 2x to 15x according to a variety of factors

  • Lancet Oncol 2005;6:773-79


Pulmonary1
Pulmonary

  • Bleomycin (ABVD, BEACOPP, VAPEC-B) can cause pulmonary fibrosis both acutely and in the long term

  • Can lead to late onset asthma/COPD

  • Again, risk is synergistic with smoking


Pulmonary2
Pulmonary

  • Lance Armstrong (7 times Tour De France winner) famously declined bleomycin (in BEP) when treated curatively for stage 4 testicular Ca!


Endocrine
Endocrine

  • Wide variety of hormone deficiency syndromes reported in survivors

  • RR of hypothyroidism up to 9x in patients who receive mantle/upper thoracic/neck XRT

  • Hypogonadism seen in patients treated with intensive chemo regimens, and esp. transplants


Endocrine1
Endocrine

  • Manifests as reduced testosterone and libido in males

  • Oligo/amenorrhoea in females due to premature ovarian failure

  • This has secondary effects on bone density, leading to osteopaenia/porosis


Second cancers
Second Cancers

  • Increased risk in all cancer survivors

  • Most if not all cancer treatments are in themselves carcinogenic

  • Radiotherapy and alkylating chemo (cyclofosfamaide/dacarbazine etc) esp. risky

  • RR varies from 9.9x (leukaemias) to 1.6x (Ca Bowel) in a series of 32,591 HL survivors (Dores et al, 2002)


Ca breast
Ca Breast

  • Lifetime risk in untreated female population:

    • 10%

  • Lifetime risk in female population treated with supradiaphragmatic radiotherapy:

    • 14-30% according to XRT field

    • Commences ~ 10 years out from XRT


Bone marrow failure
Bone Marrow Failure

  • Treatment related myelodysplasia (tMDS) risks:

    • ~1% with chemo

    • 1.5-2% with radioimmunotherapy (Zevalintm)

    • 5-10% post autograft

  • Similar rates for Acute Myeloid Leukaemia



Follow up
Follow-up

  • Follow up is of course important

  • The big question is how this should be done!


Practice at the christie
Practice at The Christie

  • Val Goode set up this service in the 1990s for lymphoma patients

  • Ad-hoc service since the 1980s

  • Patients seen 3-6 monthly in years 0-5, mainly for relapse

  • Annually years 5-10

  • Bi-annually thereafter

  • Offered discharge at year 20!


What are we doing
What are we doing?

  • Focused history/exam every visit

  • FBC/biochemistry up to year 3

  • TFTs annually in those at risk of hypothyroidism

  • Chest X-rays for those with previous mediastinal bulk/thoracic XRT/pulmonary lesions


What are we doing1
What are we doing?

  • Appropriate referrals to endocrine/fertility/cardiology etc

  • Psycho-oncology

    • Informal support/advice

    • Formal referral

  • Referral for Breast Screening


Breast screening
Breast Screening

  • A national notification risk assessment and screening programme (NRASP) was set up in 2003

  • Offered to females who

    • Have received XRT to the thorax/mediastinum/breasts

    • under the age of 36 at the time

  • Commences 8 years following completion of treatment

  • Annual screening until the age of 50

  • May require USS or MRI mammography

  • Then have 3-yearly screening in the national breast screening programme


Breast screening1
Breast Screening

  • This has been looked at in a pilot study (BJC (2009) 101, 582 – 588):

  • NRASP database searched

  • 417 women invited for clinical review

  • 243 (58%) attended

  • 23 (5.5%) have been diagnosed with Ca Breast by the NRASP

  • Standardised incidence ratio of 2.9 compared with the age-matched general population


What are we not doing
What are we not doing?

  • Lots of things!

  • Clear area of unmet need for this population

  • Lots of work to do!


The future of late effects
The Future of Late Effects

  • Detect

  • Treat

  • Prevent


Detection
Detection

  • Ensure all patients are offered/ encouraged to attend follow-up for relapse initially, and later on for late effects:

    • Do we have the databases?

    • Resources:

      • Staff/space/money!


Detection1
Detection

  • Picking up problems:

    • Correct tests at the right times

    • National Screening Programmes:

      • Breast- established 2003, improvements proposed

      • Lung- proposed

      • Cardiac- proposed

      • Endocrine- ad hoc?

  • Further research needed in this area:

    • Biomarkers of early disease

    • Preliminary work underway at The Christie


Detection2
Detection

  • Different age/disease groups may need different approaches

  • Personalised treatment summaries may help

    • Anyone can offer follow up according to its recommendations

    • ‘Dip-in/dip-out’ may appeal to teenage or busy working adults


Treat
Treat

  • Should we be treating late effects the same as de novo diseasese.g. should XRT induced Ca Breast be treated the same as sporadic?

  • Do the various specialists need knowledge of the original oncology diagnosis/treatments?


Prevention
Prevention

  • Better never than late?


Prevention1
Prevention

  • Can we minimise/eliminate some or all late effects?

  • Two main strategies to employ here:

    • De-escalate therapies based upon individualised treatment plans/biomarkers of good prognosis

    • Substitution of less-toxic therapies


Prevention some examples
Prevention: Some examples

  • RAPID Study

    • 1A/2A Hodgkin Lymphoma

    • Those who are PET –ve after chemo are randomly assigned to receive XRT or not

  • R-GCVP Study

    • Removing doxorubicin from CHOP and replacing it with gemcitabine in patients with DLBCL and poor cardiac risk


Summary
Summary

  • Late effects are under-detected and under-treated

  • Huge area of unmet need:

    • Basic research

    • Service gaps

    • Patients and families

  • There are some basic things that we can be doing now


Thank you
Thank you

  • Any Questions?

    • There are NO silly ones!

  • Thanks to:

    • All my colleagues at The Christie

    • Especially Val Goode

  • Copies of the presentation available upon request


ad