BACKGROUND Children exposed to poverty during frontline therapy for B-lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) experience inferior overall survival (OS), higher relapse rates, and earlier relapse than their peers. Real-world data describing treatment patterns and survival after relapse of B-ALL are lacking and, as a result, the impact of poverty following relapse remains poorly understood. This study evaluated the association of poverty exposure, proxied by insurance status, with post-relapse survival and explored potential explanatory mechanisms, including disease biology and therapy utilization.

METHODS Data from Retrospective Study of Contemporary Approaches to First Relapse in B-ALL (ReCALL-1), a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients < 30 years old with first relapse of B-ALL from 2018-2022, were used. The primary exposure was poverty, proxied by insurance status at relapse, categorized as any private insurance (poverty unexposed), public-only insurance (poverty exposed), no insurance, or unknown; the latter two were not included in comparative analyses due to low numbers. The primary outcome was OS. Secondary outcomes included measurable residual disease (MRD)-negative second complete remission (CR2), relapse after CR2, non-relapse mortality (NRM), with relapse treated as a competing risk, and receipt of cellular and immunotherapies.

RESULTS Among 462 patients from 31 U.S. institutions, 41% had private insurance, 47% public-only insurance, 2% no insurance, and 10% unknown. Compared to privately insured patients, those with public insurance were more likely to be Hispanic (56% vs 19%, p<0.001) and have non-English preferred language (30% vs 6%, p<0.001). Non-Hispanic Black patients comprised 9% of those with public insurance and 5% of those with private insurance. Disease characteristics that differed by insurance status at relapse included: Ph-like cytogenetics, more common in publicly insured (23% vs 11%, p=0.002), and infant ALL, more common in privately insured patients (10% vs 5%, p=0.06). Publicly insured patients were more likely to have experienced major organ toxicity during frontline therapy (32% vs 18%, p=0.002) and very early relapse (<18m from diagnosis: 43% vs 32%, p=0.07). Other demographic and disease characteristics, including relapse site and cytomolecular features, were similar by insurance status.

With a median follow-up of 51 months from relapse, 4-year OS differed by insurance (log-rank p=0.02): 72% for private vs 56% for public insurance. After adjusting for race/ethnicity and language, public insurance increased the hazard of death by 65% (aHR 1.65 95% CI 1.13-2.42, p=0.004). The association remained, but was attenuated, when unbalanced disease characteristics (time to relapse, infant ALL, Ph-like cytogenetics, prior organ dysfunction) were included (aHR 1.47, 95% CI 1.00-2.16, p=0.05).

Rates of MRD-negative CR2 were similar (85% public vs 87% private). However, point estimates suggested publicly insured patients had more relapse after CR2 (44% vs 37%, p=0.42) and higher 4-year NRM (16% vs 10%, Gray's test p=0.12), though neither were significant.

Treatment choices for first relapse did not differ by insurance status. Utilization of intensive reinduction (91% vs 95% for public vs private, p=0.18) and clinical trial enrollment (22% for both) were similar. Receipt of cellular therapies did not significantly differ by public vs private insurance: Chimeric Antigen Receptor-T cells (CAR-T: 38% vs 34%, p=0.41), hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT: 42% vs 47%, p=0.32). Use of blinatumomab trended higher in those with private insurance (36% vs 45%, p=0.07), and inotuzumab was similar (11% for both, p=0.87). Median time from relapse to CAR-T or HCT was comparable (to CAR-T 102 vs 100 days, to HCT 117 vs 114 days).

CONCLUSION This is the first study to demonstrate differential survival by insurance type, a proxy for poverty exposure, after first relapse of B-ALL. In this large multicenter, real-world cohort, patients with public insurance had worse OS after relapse than those with private insurance. The survival disparity existed independent of other SDOH factors. Adjustment for known high-risk disease features only partially accounted for the observed differences in OS. In contrast, rates of MRD-negative CR2 and receipt of CAR-T and HCT were comparable across insurance types. These findings highlight the urgent need to identify effective interventions that will ensure equitable outcomes after relapse.

This content is only available as a PDF.
2025
Sign in via your Institution