The Utility of Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor in Patients Receiving Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy with Axicabtagene Ciloleucel

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 23-25
Author(s):  
Jason N Barreto ◽  
Corina J Doleski ◽  
Justin R Hayne ◽  
Matthew A Hathcock ◽  
Tuan A Truong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Severe Neutropenia ◽  
Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Stimulating Factor ◽  
Neutropenic Episode

Background: Infection during the period of neutropenia following chemotherapy represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancy.(Freifeld, et al, 2011, Baden LR, et al, 2012) Several guidelines recommend granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) to reduce the duration and severity of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and abate infection risk.(Lyman, et al 2018, Aapro, et al, 2011, Smith, et al, 2015). Optimal GCSF administration following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy remains undefined and requires characterization. Methods: The Mayo Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective, single-center study. Electronic medical records for patients prescribed axicabtagene ciloleucel were reviewed until disease relapse, death, or a maximum of 60 days after infusion. Baseline characteristics and laboratory values were abstracted prior to lymphodepleting chemotherapy. GCSF support was originally prescribed when the absolute neutrophil count (ANC) declined below 500 cells/mm3 and discontinued when the ANC exceeded 1000 cells/mm3 (neutropenia) for 2 consecutive days. A practice change was made where GCSF was recommended only in those with febrile neutropenia and an increased concern for infection. The primary endpoint was the difference in the total days of neutropenia for patients receiving and not receiving GCSF. Secondary outcomes compared total days of severe neutropenia, number of neutropenia episodes, infection rates by GCSF use, and outcomes by protocol change. Neutropenia and severe neutropenia were defined as an ANC below 500 cells/mm3 and 100 cells/mm3, respectively. Updated data with more patients will be presented at the conference. Results: The 60 included patients had a median age of 59 (IQR: 44, 63) years, 38 (63%) were male and 53 (88%) were Caucasian. Significantly fewer patients were prescribed GCSF according to infection-related concerns compared to ANC-based indication, 18% vs. 94%, p<0.001. Because only 3 subjects received GCSF based on infection-related concerns, results based on GCSF use versus no use is shown here. GCSF was prescribed to 35 (58%) patients for a median of 8 (IQR: 6, 12) doses with a median cumulative dosage of 3840 mcg (IQR 2100-5400) and median time to first dose of 3 days (IQR: 1, 4) post CAR T-cell infusion. Table 1 displays additional baseline characteristics and laboratory parameters according to GCSF support utilization. GCSF prescribed: Table 2 displays outcomes by GCSF use. Total days of neutropenia were similar between groups (13 vs. 16, p=0.52) with a trend towards significantly fewer days of severe neutropenia when prescribed GCSF (6 vs. 9, p=0.129). Patients prescribed GCSF were more likely to experience multiple episodes of neutropenia (83% vs. 43% p=0.002) with a significantly greater median number of episodes (3 vs. 1, p=0.002) when compared to those not prescribed GCSF. GCSF use significantly decreased the median days of the first neutropenia episode (6 vs. 12, p=0.001). There was a trend for decreased median days of severe neutropenia in the first episode with GCSF (5.0 vs. 8.0, p=0.236). Figure 1 displays a trend towards a lower overall risk of infection (HR 0.55, 95%CI: 0.16-1.87, p=0.34) and lower risk of bacterial infection (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18-1.31, p=0.15); however, these were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Patients prescribed GCSF according to ANC-based indication were significantly more likely to experience multiple neutropenia episodes; however, duration of first neutropenic episode and days of severe neutropenia during the first neutropenic episode were significantly reduced. Interestingly, the total days of neutropenia and severe neutropenia were similar between groups. It is possible that using the parameter of ANC more than 1000 cells/mm3 for 2 consecutive days is not the optimal criteria for stopping GCSF. Risk of overall and bacterial infection was lower with ANC-based initiation of GCSF, although non-significant likely due to small sample size. The potential benefit for using CSF and the optimal timing after CAR T-cell infusion requires further, rigorous, prospective investigation. Disclosures Ansell: ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Bennani:Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Lin:Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding.

scholarly journals B-CLL Mediated Resistance to CAR T Cell Therapy Via Insufficient Activation Is CAR-Independent

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 44-44
Author(s):  
McKensie Collins ◽  
Weimin Kong ◽  
Inyoung Jung ◽  
Stefan M Lundh ◽  
J. Joseph Melenhorst
Keyword(s):  
Flow Cytometry ◽  
T Cells ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cytokine Production ◽  
Cell Function ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cells ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) is a B cell malignancy that accounts for nearly 1/3rd of adult leukemia diagnoses in the Western world. Conventional chemo-immunotherapies initially control progression, but in the absence of curative options patients ultimately succumb to their disease. Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is potentially curative, but only 26% of CLL patients have a complete response. CLL-stimulated T cells have reduced effector functions and B-CLL cells themselves are believed to be immunosuppressive. Our work demonstrates that insufficient activation of CAR T cells by CLL cells mediates some of these effects and that the results are conserved between ROR1- and CD19-targeting CARs. Results: In this study we used an in vitro system to model the in vivo anti-tumor response in which CAR T cells serially engage with CLL cells. Multiple stimulations of CD19 or ROR1-targeting CAR T cells with primary CLL cells recapitulated many aspects of known T cell dysfunction including reduced proliferation, cytokine production, and activation. While the initial stimulation induced low level proliferation, subsequent stimulations failed to elicit additional effector functions. We further found that these functional defects were not permanent, and that CAR T cell function could be restored by switching to a stimulus with an aAPC (artificial Antigen Presenting Cell) control cell line. The aAPCs are well-characterized as potent stimulators of CAR T cell effector responses. Flow cytometry revealed that CLL-stimulated CAR T cells retained a non-activated, baseline differentiation profile, suggesting that CLL cells fail to stimulate CAR T cells rather than rendering them non-functional. One mechanism that could dampen activation is immune suppression. We assessed this at a high level by stimulating CAR T cells with CLL cells and aAPCs mixed at known ratios. However, even cultures containing 75% CLL cells stimulated proliferation and cytokine production. Extensive immune-phenotyping revealed high level expression of the IL-2 Receptor on 90% (18/20) of the B-CLL cells tested. Since cytokine sinking via IL-2 receptor expression is a well-known mechanism of regulatory T cell suppression, we hypothesized that CLL cells similarly sink IL-2, blunting T cell activation. To test this, we supplemented IL-2 into CLL/CAR T cell co-cultures and showed that this rescued proliferation but only partially restored cytokine production. In contrast to our hypothesis, analysis of cytokine production by flow cytometry showed that CLL-stimulated CAR T cells did not produce IL-2 following a 6- or 12-hour stimulus, but TNFα was expressed after 12-hours. Similarly, CAR T cell degranulation, a prerequisite for target cell lysis was triggered after CLL recognition. These data again suggested that CLL cells insufficiently stimulate CAR T cell cytokine production, but also showed that cytolytic activity against CLL cells is intact. We further proposed that CLL cells express insufficient levels of co-stimulatory and adhesion molecules to activate CAR T cells. Flow cytometry showed that most CLL cells expressed co-stimulatory and adhesion molecules at low levels; we hypothesized that up-regulating these molecules would enhance CAR T cell targeting of CLL cells. CLL cells were activated with CD40L and IL-4, which increased expression of CD54, CD58, CD80, and CD86. Stimulating CAR T cells with activated CLL cells enhanced CAR T cell proliferation and induced cell conjugate formation, indicating cell activation. Therefore, improving CLL stimulatory capacity can rescue T cell dysfunctions. To assess whether IL-2 addition and CD40 ligation were synergistic, we combined the two assays; however, we saw no additional improvement over IL-2 addition alone, suggesting that the two interventions may act upon the same pathway. Importantly, we also showed that rescue of CAR T cell function via IL-2 addition or CD40 ligation was not CAR-specific, as we observed the functional defects and subsequent rescue with both a ROR1-targeting CAR and the gold standard CD19-targeting CAR. Conclusions: Together, these data show that CAR T cell "defects" in CLL are actually insufficient activation, and improving the stimulatory capacity of CLL cells may enable better clinical responses. Further, this effect is not CAR-specific and these results may therefore be broadly applicable to multiple therapies for this disease. Disclosures Melenhorst: IASO Biotherapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: Speaker, Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Other: Speaker; Simcere of America: Consultancy; Poseida Therapeutics: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Bleeding and Thrombosis Are Associated with Endothelial Dysfunction in CAR-T Cell Therapy and Are Increased in Patients Experiencing Neurologic Toxicity

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
Andrew Johnsrud ◽  
Juliana Craig ◽  
John H. Baird ◽  
Jay Y. Spiegel ◽  
Lori S. Muffly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Private Company ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T ◽  
Thrombotic Complications ◽  
D Dimer ◽  
Support Research

Background Treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies have shown dramatic, often durable responses for relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies. However, it can be associated with significant side effects such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS), immune effector-cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) and life-threatening consumptive coagulopathies. The underlying pathobiology of such hemostatic defects and their distinct clinical sequelae remains obscure. This retrospective study aims at quantifying CAR T therapy associated bleeding and thrombotic complications and their association with CRS, ICANS, and laboratory derangements. Methods 130 adult patients with DLBCL or B-ALL treated between 2017-2020 with CD19 CAR-T therapy axicabtagene ciloleucel (N=90) or a bispecific CD 19/22 CAR construct utilizing 4-1BB costimulatory domains (N=40) were analyzed to determine dynamics of coagulation parameters and platelet counts as well as incidences of bleeding or thrombosis in the first three months after CAR T infusion. Events were included if graded ≥ 2 or if intervention was required. Platelet counts and coagulation parameters were collected prior to lymphodepletion (pre-LD), day 0, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 60 and 90. Results 12 (9.2%) and 8 (6.2%) patients developed bleeding and thrombotic complications in the first three months after CAR-T infusion, respectively. Events are characterized in Figure 1. All bleeding events occurred between days 0-30 (median 17.5, range 8-30), while thrombotic events occurred between days 2-91 (median day 29, range, 2-91). Two (1.5%) patients experienced both bleeding and thrombosis. Bleeding events coincided with the onset of thrombocytopenia and hypofibrinogenemia, and patients who bled had lower platelet (median 22.5 vs. 47 K/uL; p=0.03) and fibrinogen (median 151 vs. 351 ug/mL; p=0.007) nadirs in the first 30 days compared to those without bleeding. Temporally, the lowest median platelet nadir occurred at day 7 in patients with bleeding events vs. day 21 in patients without bleeding, while timing of fibrinogen nadirs were at day 21 in both. Patients with bleeding episodes were more likely to be older (median age: 70 vs. 60 yrs, p=0.03), have thrombocytopenia prior to lymphodepletion therapy (median 117.5 vs. 174.5 K/uL, p=0.01), and have elevated LDH (lymphoma subgroup; p=0.07). Other lab derangements in the first 30 days seen more frequently in patients with bleeding included prolonged thrombin time (TT) (21% vs. 6%; p=0.02), PT (16% vs. 5%; p=0.06), and elevated d-dimer (16% vs. 3%; p=0.01) indicative of a consumptive process. Thrombotic events were not significantly associated with elevated or peak d-dimer values (median 4.97 vs. 2.37 ug/mL, p=0.20). Interestingly, occurrence or severity of CRS was not associated with bleeding or thrombotic events, nor was it associated with marked derangements in coagulation abnormalities. However, higher grade ICANS (grade > 3) was associated with bleeding (42% vs. 15%; p=0.038), thrombosis (50% vs. 16%; p=0.03), and evidence of endothelial activation including PT prolongation (78% vs. 35%; p<0.001), hypofibrinogenemia (57% vs. 20%; p=0.001), and trend towards elevated d-dimer (70% vs. 46%; p=0.06). 13 (10%) patients received anticoagulation for prophylaxis or therapeutic indications that predated CAR T infusion. Four started anticoagulation secondarily for thrombotic events after CAR-T infusion, and one received tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for an acute stroke. In this group, no patients developed bleeding complications from anticoagulation. Conclusion Both bleeding (9.2%), and thrombotic (6.2%) events are observed after CAR T cell therapy, with bleeding limited to the first month in our cohort. Notably, ICANS was uniquely associated with PT prolongation, hypofibrinogenemia, and increased fibrin degradation, in addition to both bleeding and thrombosis. These results suggest that a systemic coagulopathy coincides with high grade ICANS and whether these neurologic events truly represent sequelae of widespread vascular dysfunction warrants further investigation. Anticoagulation was safe in the patients whom it was indicated. Risk factors for bleeding and thrombotic complications should be studied prospectively to develop risk-assessment models and clinical guidelines for management of bleeding and thrombosis (including prophylaxis) during CAR T therapy. Disclosures Muffly: Adaptive: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Negrin:BioEclipse Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; KUUR Therapeutics: Consultancy; Biosource: Current equity holder in private company; Amgen: Consultancy; UpToDate: Honoraria. Shizuru:Jasper Therapeutics, Inc: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Meyer:Orca Bio: Research Funding. Shiraz:Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; ORCA BioSystems: Research Funding. Rezvani:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Mackall:Apricity Health: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company; NeoImmune Tech: Consultancy; Nektar Therapeutics: Consultancy; Allogene: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; BMS: Consultancy; Lyell Immunopharma: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company. Miklos:Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Allogene Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Sidana:Janssen: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Costs of Postinfusion Monitoring By Site of Care for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) Who Received Third-Line or Later Treatment with Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (liso-cel) in the Transcend NHL 001 and Outreach Trials

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 16-17
Author(s):  
M. Lia Palomba ◽  
Monika P. Jun ◽  
Jacob Garcia ◽  
James Lymp ◽  
November McGarvey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Cost Ratio ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T ◽  
Third Line

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is generally limited to inpatient settings; yet, exploration of outpatient infusion and monitoring is ongoing. Information on health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with CAR T cell therapy administration is limited and may differ by postinfusion monitoring site. Liso-cel is an investigational, CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8+ and CD4+ CAR+ T cells. An interim analysis from the OUTREACH study (NCT03744676) observed lower HCRU with outpatient vs inpatient administration (Bachier et al. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:8037). The patient journey after CAR T cell therapy administration may differ for patients with outpatient vs inpatient monitoring and may result in varying costs of care. This study estimated the cost of postinfusion monitoring by site of care for patients with R/R LBCL who received third-line or later treatment with liso-cel in the TRANSCEND NHL 001 (TRANSCEND; NCT02631044) and OUTREACH clinical trials. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed HCRU reported in clinical trial databases from TRANSCEND and OUTREACH. A 2-step microcosting method was used to identify key HCRU and to estimate postinfusion costs: (1) HCRU was analyzed from the index date (day of liso-cel infusion) through the 6-month follow-up; and (2) costs were applied to each HCRU. HCRU included standard inpatient and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), diagnostics (laboratory work and imaging), procedures (dialysis and intubation), and medications (supportive care, prophylactic treatment, and adverse event management). Unit costs were obtained from the health care system (provider) perspective and adjusted to 2020 US dollars. Cost per standard inpatient day ($2,542) was estimated from Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases, and cost per ICU day ($7,556) was sourced from Dasta et al (Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1266-77). All medication costs were obtained from REDBOOK (IBM Micromedex) using wholesale acquisition costs. Diagnostic and procedure costs were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services laboratory fee schedule, physician fee schedule, or outpatient prospective payment system. A payment-to-cost ratio was applied to Medicare payment rates to estimate unit costs. Costs were adjusted to reflect the site of care where the HCRU occurred. A cost ratio was applied to adjust costs from the physician's office/community oncology clinic to the hospital outpatient department (Winfield, Muhlestein, Leavitt Partners; 2017) and from outpatient to inpatient (Meisenberg et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1998;21:927-32). Costs were aggregated by HCRU category, specifically medications, diagnostics, procedures, and facility costs. An average total cost by post-liso-cel infusion month was calculated for patients with ongoing status in that month (patients censored due to data cutoff were not included). Analyses were stratified by site of postinfusion monitoring (inpatients vs outpatients). Results: A total of 303 patients with R/R LBCL across the 2 trials received liso-cel and postinfusion monitoring (inpatients, n = 256; outpatients, n = 47). HCRU and LOS, including standard inpatient and ICU days, are shown in the Table. Inpatients had higher rates of inpatient stays (<100% vs 62%) and tocilizumab use (for CRS and/or NE; 20% vs 9%) than outpatients, respectively. Rates of ICU admission, corticosteroid use, vasopressor use, dialysis, and intubation were similar between groups. Median and average LOS in standard inpatient and ICU settings were higher among inpatients. Median (range) total LOS for inpatients and outpatients was 15 (0-88) and 4 (0-77) days, respectively. The estimated mean postinfusion cost of care was $89,535 for inpatients and $36,702 for outpatients. Over 6 months, most costs were incurred in the first month after infusion ($50,369 [56%] for inpatients and $19,837 [54%] for outpatients). Costs were largely driven by facility costs, namely standard inpatient and ICU stays (Figure). Conclusions: Lower overall HCRU was observed with outpatient liso-cel postinfusion monitoring, primarily due to hospitalizations, which resulted in a mean 6-month cost savings of $52,833 (59%) compared with inpatient monitoring. These results are based on national average costs and may not be generalizable to specific institutions. Disclosures Palomba: Regeneron: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Jun:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Garcia:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment. Lymp:Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Current Employment. McGarvey:Pfizer, Inc.: Ended employment in the past 24 months; BluePath Solutions: Current Employment. Gitlin:BMS: Research Funding. Pelletier:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Nguyen:BluePath Solutions: Current Employment.

scholarly journals Qualitative Analysis of the Treatment Experience and Well-Being of Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) Enrolled in 2 Trials of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (liso-cel) during the Initial Stages of Therapy

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 22-23
Author(s):  
Tanya Siddiqi ◽  
Ulrich Jaeger ◽  
Olga Moshkovich ◽  
Jennifer Devlen ◽  
Matthew Miera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Publicly Traded ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T

Background: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is a novel treatment modality for patients with R/R LBCL. Limited information exists regarding patients' views of CAR T cell therapy. Our research aimed to better understand patients' needs by capturing their expectations/concerns, current well-being, and treatment experiences during the beginning stages of CAR T cell therapy in the clinical trial setting. Methods: Patients with R/R LBCL from 2 ongoing trials of the investigational, CD19-directed CAR T cell therapy liso-cel (TRANSCEND WORLD [NCT03484702] or PLATFORM [NCT03310619]) were invited to participate in an optional interview component. Semistructured interviews were conducted to gain insight about patients' experience with CAR T cell therapy in the clinical trials. Interviews of ≤1 hour (in-person or over the phone) were conducted in parallel with screening procedures (interview 1), after leukapheresis (interview 2), and up to 3 days after liso-cel infusion (interview 3). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. MAXQDA (VERBI GmbH, Berlin, Germany) qualitative analysis software was used to manage and thematically organize interview transcript data to identify key concepts related to each research objective. Previously reported results of interview 1 showed a high perception of unmet needs, lack of alternative options, and expectations for positive outcomes. The analysis presented here primarily focused on interviews 2 and 3. Denominators shown in the Results vary by question as some patients skipped questions. Results: A total of 75 interviews were analyzed, including 35, 24, and 16 patients at interviews 1, 2, and 3, respectively, across sites in the US (n = 14), Europe (n = 26), and Japan (n = 2). Among 42 patients who completed ≥1 interview, the mean age was 62 years and 69% were male. Treatment Experience: Of 24 patients who completed interview 2, 22 (92%) reported positive experiences during leukapheresis and 16 (67%) reported the procedure was as expected. Patients thought the most difficult part of leukapheresis was the length of the procedure (n = 8/21 [38%]). Of 15 patients who provided feedback on lymphodepleting chemotherapy, a majority reported that it was as expected (n = 8 [53%]) or easier than expected (n = 3 [20%]); when asked about the most difficult part, many patients (n = 7/17 [41%]) discussed side effects (eg, nausea, fatigue, and lack of appetite). Of patients who described liso-cel infusion as different than expected, differences included easier (n = 12/13 [92%]) or quicker (n = 3/12 [25%]) than expected, and 5/12 (42%) reported few/no side effects within 3 days post-infusion. Over half of patients (n = 8/14 [57%]) reported that the infusion, as a whole, was not difficult. Changes over Time: At interviews 1, 2, and 3, respectively, 47% (n = 14/30), 47% (n = 9/19), and 69% (n = 9/13) of patients reported hoping for successful treatment. Similarly, patients generally had fewer concerns later in the process, with 21 (64%) and 11 (33%) of 33 patients reporting side-effect and treatment efficacy concerns, respectively, during interview 1 vs 5 (33%) and 3 (20%) of 15 patients, respectively, during interview 3. At time of enrollment, most patients (n = 21/34 [62%]) were able to function normally or with minimal impact from their lymphoma, although most reported some symptoms like fatigue, pain, or stomach problems. At interview 1, 14 (40%) of 35 patients were employed; most patients reported no changes in their work life at interviews 2 (n = 19/20 [95%]) and 3 (n = 11/12 [92%]). From enrollment to immediately post-infusion, the physical health of most patients remained stable (n = 4/16 [25%]) or deteriorated (n = 9/16 [56%]). However, most patients (n = 14/15 [93%]) reported feeling positive at interview 3. Conclusions: This study provided the unique opportunity to gather feedback directly from patients participating in clinical trials of liso-cel therapy, specifically during the initial treatment stages. The overall impression of the treatment was positive, with most patients reporting that study procedures were easier than expected. The results of this qualitative research provide useful insight into the motivations, expectations, and experiences of patients with R/R LBCL receiving liso-cel therapy, which can inform the design of health care support systems and future clinical trials to better meet patients' needs. Disclosures Siddiqi: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncternal: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau. Jaeger:F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CDR Life AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Miltenyi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Moshkovich:Icon Plc: Current Employment. Devlen:Icon Plc: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Miera:Icon Plc: Current Employment. Williams:Icon Plc: Current Employment. Hasskarl:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Braverman:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Salles:MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Debiopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Epizyme: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Participation in educational events; Autolus: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Profiling T-Cell Receptor Diversity and Dynamics during Lymphoma Immunotherapy Using Cell-Free DNA (cfDNA)

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 49-50
Author(s):  
Navika D Shukla ◽  
Alexander F. M. Craig ◽  
Brian Sworder ◽  
David M. Kurtz ◽  
Charles Macaulay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T ◽  
Tcr Repertoire ◽  
Support Research

Background: Characterization of T-cell receptor (TCR) diversity and dynamics is increasingly critical to understanding therapeutic immune responses targeting tumors. Current TCR profiling methods generally require invasive tissue biopsies that capture a single snapshot of immune activity or are limited by the sheer diversity of the circulating TCR repertoire. In theory, T-cells with the greatest turnover could best reflect pivotal immune dynamics from both circulating and tissue-derived compartments, including non-circulating tissue-resident memory T-cells (Trm). To noninvasively capture such responses in the blood, we developed and benchmarked a high-throughput TCR profiling approach using plasma, optimized for the fragmented nature of cfDNA and the non-templated nature of rearranged TCRs. We then applied this method for residual disease monitoring in mature T-cell lymphomas (TCL) without circulating disease and for characterizing immune dynamics after anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR19) T-cell therapy of B-cell lymphomas with axicabtagene ciloleucel. Methods: We developed SABER (Sequence Affinity capture & analysis By Enumeration of cell-free Receptors) as a technique for TCR enrichment and analysis of fragmented rearrangements shed in cfDNA and applied this method using Cancer Personalized Profiling by Deep Sequencing (CAPP-Seq). We used SABER to profile a total of 381 samples (300 cfDNA and 81 PBMC samples) from 75 lymphoma patients and 18 healthy controls. After mapping sequencing reads (hg38) to identify candidate rearrangements within TCR loci, unique cfDNA fragments were resolved by a novel strategy to define consensus of unique molecular identifiers clustered by Levenshtein distances, followed by CDR3-anchoring for enumeration of final receptor clonotypes. SABER thus leverages information from fragmented TCRs, a critical requirement for cfDNA, to make V gene, CDR3, and J gene assignments after deduplication-mediated error-correction. We benchmarked SABER against established amplicon-based TCR-β targeted sequencing (LymphoTrack, Invivoscribe) and repertoire analysis methods (MiXCR; Bolotin et al, 2015 Nature Methods) when considering both cfDNA and PBMC samples from healthy adults and TCL patients. We assessed SABER performance for tracking clonal molecular disease in patients with mature TCLs from both cellular and cell-free circulating compartments (n=9). Malignant TCL clonotypes were identified in tumor specimens using clonoSEQ (Adaptive Biotechnologies). Finally, we evaluated TCR repertoire dynamics over time in 66 DLBCL patients after CAR19 T-cell therapy. Results: SABER demonstrated superior recovery of TCR clonotypes from cfDNA compared to both amplicon sequencing (LymphoTrack, Invivoscribe) and hybrid-capture methods when enumerating receptors using MiXCR (Fig. 1A). When applied to blood samples from TCL patients, SABER identified the malignant clonal TCR-β rearrangement in 8/9 (88.9%) cases, with significantly improved detection in cfDNA (p=0.015, Fig. 1B). Specifically, tumoral TCR clonotype was detectable only in cfDNA in 6 cases (75%), cfDNA-enriched in 1 case (12.5%), and detectable only in PBMCs in 1 case (12.5%). We applied SABER to monitor TCR repertoire dynamics in cfDNA after CAR T-cell therapy of patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL and observed increased T-cell turnover and repertoire expansion (greater total TCR-β clonotypes) (Fig. 1C). As early as 1-week after CAR19 infusion, TCR repertoire size was significantly correlated both with cellular CAR19 T-cell levels by flow cytometry (p=0.008) as well as with retroviral CAR19 levels in cfDNA (p=2.20e-07) suggesting faithful monitoring of CAR T-cell activity (Fig. 1D). TCR repertoire size one month after infusion was significantly associated with longer progression-free survival (HR 0.246, 95% CI 0.080-0.754, p=0.014). Conclusions: SABER has a favorable profile for cfDNA TCR repertoire capture when compared to existing methods and could thus have potential broad applicability to diverse disease contexts. Given the higher abundance of lymphoma-derived TCRs in cfDNA than intact circulating leukocytes, SABER holds promise for monitoring minimal residual disease in T-cell lymphomas. This approach also holds promise for monitoring T-cell repertoire changes including after CAR T-cell therapy and for predicting therapeutic responses. Disclosures Kurtz: Genentech: Consultancy; Foresight Diagnostics: Other: Ownership; Roche: Consultancy. Kim:Corvus: Research Funding; Eisai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Elorac: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Galderma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Horizon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kyowa-Kirin Pharma: Research Funding; Medivir: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; miRagen: Research Funding; Neumedicine: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Solingenix: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding. Mackall:Lyell Immunopharma: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company; BMS: Consultancy; Allogene: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Apricity Health: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company; Nektar Therapeutics: Consultancy; NeoImmune Tech: Consultancy. Miklos:Kite-Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Juno-Celgene-Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Allogene Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Other: Travel support, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding. Diehn:Varian Medical Systems: Research Funding; Illumina: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; RefleXion: Consultancy; BioNTech: Consultancy. Khodadoust:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Alizadeh:Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Chugai: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding.

Evaluation of Eligibility for CAR-T Cell Therapy in a Population-Based Cohort of 3550 Patients with Incident Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) in Sweden

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 38-39
Author(s):  
Karin Ekstroem Smedby ◽  
Sara Harrysson ◽  
Sara Ekberg ◽  
Mats Jerkeman ◽  
Per-Ola Andersson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T ◽  
First Relapse

Background Today, even though most patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can be cured with standard immunochemotherapy, 20-30% are refractory to primary therapy or relapse during follow-up with a drastic worsening of the prognosis. In recent years, new promising treatment options including CAR-T cell therapy are becoming available for relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL patients although so far with logistic challenges including disease control and toxicities, and a considerable cost. In view of these challenges, we aimed to estimate the proportion of patients with R/R DLBCL that are likely to be eligible for CAR-T cell therapy in clinical routine, and their expected outcome in the pre-CAR-T era. Methods All patients with DLBCL starting primary therapy with curative intent were identified in the Swedish Lymphoma Register for the period 2007-2014 (N=3550). Primary CNS and primary mediastinal B-cell lymphomas were excluded. Data regarding primary treatment response and relapse was validated through medical chart review in the entire cohort during follow-up until Dec 31st 2017, and information about additional treatment lines including disease characteristics, blood test results, and relapse treatment response was collected. Eligibility for CAR-T cell therapy was estimated retrospectively based on eligibility criteria specified in clinical trials, both at first relapse by applying similar criteria as in the ongoing TRANSFORM, ZUMA-7 or PILOT studies (hereafter termed "CAR-T-2ndline"), and at second relapse applying criteria similar to those specified in the JULIET trial (hereafter termed "CAR-T-3rdline"). Administration of second- and third-line therapies and corresponding response rates were considered as proxies for eligibility and response to bridging therapies. Criteria applied for "CAR-T-2ndline" included R/R DLBCL within 12 months of evaluation date of primary treatment, age 18-75 years, ECOG 0-1, and additional criteria as specified in the TRANSFORM trial (see figure footnote). Criteria applied for "CAR-T-3rdline" included relapse following second-line therapy, age 18-76 years, ECOG 0-1, and additional criteria as in the JULIET trial (see figure footnote). Individuals with missing data on performance status were assumed ineligible. We lacked information about other malignancies in the disease history. Overall survival probabilities were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method among all R/R DLBCL patients in the trial-specified age intervals and separately among those fulfilling all trial criteria. Results In the cohort of 3550 curatively treated DLBCL patients, 847 (cumulative incidence 23%) experienced R/R disease during a median follow-up of 4.3 years. Median age at first relapse was 71 years (range 18-95 years). Overall, 308 patients ≤75 years experienced progression/relapse within 12 months and were able to start second-line therapy. Of these, 148 patients (17% of all R/R DLBCL patients) fulfilled trial eligibility criteria for "CAR-T-2ndline", of whom 60 responded with at least partial remission (overall response rate, ORR, 41%). At second relapse, 370 patients 76 years or younger received third-line therapy, of whom 55 (6.5% of all R/R DLBCL patients) were deemed eligible for "Car-T-3rdline", and 13 responded (ORR 24%, another 5 patients had SD). Two-year overall survival (OS) among all R/R DLBCL patients ≤75 years receiving second-line therapy was 20% (95% confidence interval, CI, 16-25%) (Fig 1). Among those eligible for "CAR-T-2ndline", 2-year OS was 24% (95% CI 17-31%). Among patients ≤76 years at second relapse, 2-year OS was 18% (95% CI 13-24%), and among those eligible for "CAR-T-3rdline", 21% (95% CI 11-32%). Conclusion In the population-based setting, one in six patients (17%) with R/R DLBCL fitted trial eligibility criteria for CAR-T-cell therapy at first relapse and only one in fifteen patients (6.5%) fitted trial criteria at second relapse at retrospective evaluation. Figures were reduced when adding requirement of response to relapse/bridging therapy. These estimates illustrate to what extent current CAR-T cell therapies may be applied in a routine setting when based on trial criteria, and the need for development of modified and additional therapies in this group. Outcome estimation confirmed a poor outcome in these groups and did not indicate that fulfillment of trial criteria led to selection bias in terms of survival. Disclosures Ekstroem Smedby: Janssen Cilag: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisory Board; Takeda: Research Funding. Harrysson:Janssen Cilag: Research Funding. Jerkeman:Janssen: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding. Eloranta:Janssen Cilag: Research Funding.

Single-Center Experience with Axicabtagene-Ciloleucel (Axi-cel) and Tisagenlecleucel (Tisa-cel) for Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Comparable Response Rates and Manageable Toxicity

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 34-35
Author(s):  
Veit Buecklein ◽  
Viktoria Blumenberg ◽  
Josephine Ackermann ◽  
Christian Schmidt ◽  
Kai Rejeski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
B Cell Lymphoma ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Single Center Experience ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T

The CD19 CAR T-cell products Axi-cel and Tisa-cel induce complete responses (CR) in 40-58% of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (r/r) Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL). However, treatment can be associated with significant toxicity, with Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and Immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) as the most prominent and specific adverse events of CAR T-cell therapy. Toxicity profiles differ between both commercially available products, mainly due to their divergent co-stimulatory domain (4-1BB in Tisa-cel vs. CD28 in Axi-cel). Here, we report our single-center experience of DLBCL patients treated with Axi-cel or Tisa-cel at the LMU Munich University Hospital between January 2019 and June 2020. Toxicities, response rates and survival of DLBCL patients were retrospectively assessed. As of June 2020, 48 patients were enrolled for CD19-CAR T-cell therapies at our centre, and 37 DLBCL patients (pts) were apheresed. Median time interval between apheresis and CAR T-cell treatment was 39 days. So far, 31 DLBCL pts were transfused (Axi-cel: 18, Tisa-cel: 13). Median age of transfused pts was 60 years (range 19-74, Axi-cel: 60 years, Tisa-cel: 60 years). ECOG was 0-1 in 19 and 2-3 in 12 pts at time of CAR T-cell transfusion (Axi-cel: 0-1 in 13 and 2-3 in 5 pts, Tisa-cel: 0-1 in 6 and 2-3 in 7 pts). 13 pts had undergone prior stem cell transplant (9 autologous, 3 allogeneic, Axi-cel: 4 auto, 2 allo; Tisa-cel: 5 auto, 1 allo). Median number of prior DLBCL therapy lines was four (range 2-9, Axi-cel: 4, Tisa-cel: 4). Only 9/31 pts (29%) met the inclusion criteria of the pivotal clinical trials (due to e.g. infection, CNS disease, thrombocytopenia) at time of enrolment into our CAR T-cell treatment program. 23 pts (74%) received bridging chemotherapy (Axi-cel: 13/18 pts [72%]; Tisa-cel: 10/13 [77%]). Further details on radiographic response and the incidence of toxicities for all treated pts are summarized in the accompanying table. Response assessment after three months using PET/CT was available for 28 pts. Objective response rate (ORR) was 46%, with CR in eight (28%) and partial remission (PR) in five pts (18%). CRS occurred in 29/31 pts (84% CRS °1-2, 10% °3). Tocilizumab was applied in all CRS pts, with a median of four total infusions (range 1-4). 16 pts (52%) developed ICANS (33% °1-2, 16% °3-4, and 3% °5), which was managed with steroids in 9/16 pts. With a median follow-up of seven months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.4 months for all pts. PFS was significantly longer for pts with normal vs. elevated LDH at time of apheresis (not reached vs. 1.5 mo, p=0.031). PFS of patients with two prior lines of therapy (n=7) was comparable with pts with three (n=5) or more (n=15) lines (2 lines: 3.1 mo, ≥3 lines: 1.9 mo, p=0.520). The time interval of ≤ 12 months (n=8 pts) from initial diagnosis of DLBCL to CAR T-cell transfusion was not prognostic and did not identify patients with worse PFS (≤12 mo: 1.7 months, >12 mo: 2.8 mo, p=0.569). In summary, in our cohort of heavily pretreated patients with a median of four prior DLBCL therapy lines, we observed an ORR of 46% (28% CR) at 3 months after CAR T-cell therapy, with no significant differences between patients treated with Axi-cel and Tisa-cel. In line with results of the pivotal clinical trials, treatment with Axi-cel was associated with a moderately higher incidence of ICANS. Overall, CAR T-cell toxicities were well manageable. Normal LDH levels at time of apheresis identified patients with high probability of sustained remission. In contrast, the number of prior therapy lines or the time interval from initial diagnosis of DLBCL to CAR T-cell transfusion had no impact on PFS. These hypothesis-generating findings might be helpful for future clinical decision-making, but need to be confirmed in a larger cohort. Therefore, we have set up a comprehensive patient monitoring program to identify predictive clinical and immunological markers of response and survival in CAR T-cell treated DLBCL patients. We will present updated results with longer follow-up at the annual meeting. Figure Disclosures Buecklein: Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Blumenberg:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding. Subklewe:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; AMGEN: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Iomab with Adoptive Cellular Therapy (Iomab-ACT): A Pilot Study of 131-I Apamistamab Followed By CD19-Targeted CAR T-Cell Therapy for Patients with Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia or Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4810-4810
Author(s):  
Mark B. Geyer ◽  
Briana Cadzin ◽  
Elizabeth Halton ◽  
Peter Kane ◽  
Brigitte Senechal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cells ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cells ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T

Abstract Background: Autologous CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor-modified (CAR) T-cell therapy leads to complete responses (CR) in patients (pts) with (w/) relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL, >80% CR rate) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL, ~40-55% CR rate). However, following fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy) conditioning and CAR T-cell therapy w/ a CD28 costimulatory domain (e.g. 19-28z CAR T-cells), rates of grade ≥3 ICANS and grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in pts w/ R/R DLBCL and morphologic R/R B-ALL exceed 30%. CRS and ICANS are associated w/ considerable morbidity, including increased length of hospitalization, and may be fatal. Host monocytes appear to be the major reservoir of cytokines driving CRS and ICANS post-CAR T-cell therapy (Giavradis et al. and Norelli et al., Nature Medicine, 2018). Circulating monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) may also blunt efficacy of 19-28z CAR T-cells in R/R DLBCL (Jain et al., Blood, 2021). The CD45-targeted antibody radioconjugate (ARC) 131-I apamistamab is being investigated at myeloablative doses as conditioning prior to hematopoietic cell transplantation in pts w/ R/R acute myeloid leukemia. However, even at low doses (4-20 mCi), transient lymphocyte and blast reduction are observed. Preclinical studies in C57BL/6 mice demonstrate low-dose anti CD45 radioimmunotherapy (100 microCi) transiently depletes >90% lymphocytes, including CD4/CD8 T-cells, B-cells, NK cells, and T-regs, as well as splenocytes and MDSCs, w/ negligible effect on bone marrow (BM) hematopoietic stem cells (Dawicki et al., Oncotarget, 2020). We hypothesized a higher, yet nonmyeloablative dose of 131-I apamistamab may achieve more sustained, but reversible depletion of lymphocytes and other CD45 + immune cells, including monocytes thought to drive CRS/ICANS. We additionally hypothesized this approach (vs Flu/Cy) prior to CAR T-cell therapy would promote CAR T-cell expansion while reducing CSF levels of monocyte-derived cytokines (e.g. IL-1, IL-6, and IL-10), thus lowering the risk of severe ICANS (Fig 1A). Study design and methods: We are conducting a single-institution pilot study of 131-I apamistamab in lieu of Flu/Cy prior to 19-28z CAR T-cells in adults w/ R/R BALL or DLBCL (NCT04512716; Iomab-ACT); accrual is ongoing. Pts are eligible for leukapheresis if they are ≥18 years-old w/ R/R DLBCL (de novo or transformed) following ≥2 chemoimmunotherapy regimens w/ ≥1 FDG-avid measurable lesion or B-ALL following ≥1 line of multi-agent chemotherapy (R/R following induction/consolidation; prior 2 nd/3 rd gen TKI required for pts w/ Ph+ ALL) w/ ≥5% BM involvement and/or FDG-avid extramedullary disease, ECOG performance status 0-2, and w/ appropriate organ function. Active or prior CNS disease is not exclusionary. Pts previously treated w/ CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy are eligible as long as CD19 expression is retained. See Fig 1B/C: Post-leukapheresis, 19-28z CAR T-cells are manufactured as previously described (Park et al., NEJM, 2018). Bridging therapy is permitted at investigator discretion. Thyroid blocking is started ≥48h pre-ARC. 131-I apamistamab 75 mCi is administered 5-7 days pre-CAR T-cell infusion to achieve total absorbed marrow dose ~200 cGy w/ remaining absorbed dose <25 cGy at time of T-cell infusion. 19-28z CAR T-cells are administered as a single infusion (1x10 6/kg, B-ALL pts; 2x10 6/kg, DLBCL pts). The primary objective is to determine safety/tolerability of 131-I apamistamab 75 mCi given prior to 19-28z CAR T-cells in pts w/ R/R B-ALL/DLBCL. Secondary objectives include determining incidence/severity of ICANS and CRS, anti-tumor efficacy, and 19-28z CAR T-cell expansion/persistence. Key exploratory objectives include describing the cellular microenvironment following ARC and 19-28z CAR T-cell infusion using spectral cytometry, as well as cytokine levels in peripheral blood and CRS. The trial utilizes a 3+3 design in a single cohort. If dose-limiting toxicity (severe infusion-related reactions, treatment-resistant severe CRS/ICANS, persistent regimen-related cytopenias, among others defined in protocol) is seen in 0-1 of the first 3 pts treated, then up to 6 total (up to 3 additional) pts will be treated. We have designed this study to provide preliminary data to support further investigation of CD45-targeted ARCs prior to adoptive cellular therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Geyer: Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Geoghegan: Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment. Reddy: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Berger: Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment. Ludwig: Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment. Pandit-Taskar: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Clarity Pharma: Research Funding; Illumina: Consultancy, Honoraria; ImaginAb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ymabs: Research Funding; Progenics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Medimmune/Astrazeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding. Sauter: Genmab: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi-Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: 131-I apamistamab and 19-28z CAR T-cells are investigational agents in treatment of ALL and DLBCL

scholarly journals Primary Progression on Frontline Therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Is Associated with a Poor Outcome Despite Subsequent CD19 Targeted CAR T-Cell Therapy

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3855-3855
Author(s):  
Ariel Perez Perez ◽  
Grace Johnson ◽  
Kedar Patel ◽  
Brian Arciola ◽  
Anthony Wood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
B Cell ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T ◽  
Scientific Advisory ◽  
Advisory Role

Abstract Introduction: Between 50-80% of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are cured by frontline (1L) R-CHOP immunochemotherapy. Ultra-high risk (UHR) features for poor overall survival (OS) include: progression through the frontline therapy (primary progression, PP), presence of a MYC translocation (MYC-R+), and a high or high-intermediate National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) (Costa, Am. J. Hematol., 2017). We aim to explore the role of these UHR factors in the outcomes of DLBCL patients receiving standard of care (SOC) anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. Methods: This is a retrospective single-center study of relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL patients treated with either axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) as SOC at Moffitt Cancer Center according to the FDA label as of March 2021, or who were treated on the expanded access programs (EAP) for axi-cel (NCT03153462) and tisa-cel (NCT03601442) for the provision of CAR T when products fell outside of manufacturing specifications (OOS). We excluded patients who had received prior therapy for indolent B-cell lymphomas (iNHL). We defined patients with primary treatment failure (PTF) as: PP, residual disease after 1L therapy (RD), or early relapse within 6 months of 1L therapy (ER). For patients with PTF, we calculated the number of UHR features (0 to 3): MYC status, NCCN-IPI, and PP. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to compare progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) starting from the date of CAR T-cell infusion, with statistical significance determined using the log-rank test at the P<0.05 threshold. Results: A total of 187 R/R DLBCL patients received SOC or EAP CAR T-cell therapy, of which 116 had DLBCL with no prior therapy for iNHL and were included in this analysis. PTF occurred in 75 patients (65%), of which 30 (40%) patients had primary progression as the failure pattern, 23 (30.7%) patients had MYC-R detected by FISH, and 37 (49.3%) patients had intermediate-high/high NCCN-IPI scores at the time of PTF. The median follow up was 10.05 months. Of the 75 patients with PTF, 69 received axi-cel and 6 received tisa-cel. Main 1L therapies were R-CHOP in 59 (78.6%) cases and DA-EPOCH-R in 14 (18.7%). The median lines of therapy prior to CAR T-cell therapy was 3 (range 2-6 lines). The number of UHR features was associated with a shorter OS after CAR T-cell therapy. The OS for patients with 2-3 and 0-1 UHR were 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 15.13 months) and not reached, respectively (P=0.005; Figure 1A). In terms of PTF patterns, PP was associated with worse PFS and OS after CAR T-cell therapy compared to other patterns (RD/ER) (PP, mPFS 3.1 months vs RD/ER, mPFS not reached; p<0.001; PP, median OS 5.63 months vs RD/ER, mOS not reached, P<0.001; Figure 1B). Patients with PTF and MYC-R+ had no difference in PFS (P=0.51) but a shorter OS after CAR T-cell therapy compared to those without an identified MYC translocation (P=0.05). Patients with intermediate-high or high NCCN-IPI at time of PTF had similar PFS (P=0.75) and OS (P=0.34) to patients with intermediate-low or low NCCN-IPI. Conclusion: Patients with DLBCL who experience PP to frontline immunochemotherapy had shorter PFS and OS after subsequent CAR T-cell therapy compared to other PTF patterns. R/R DLBCL patients with PP represent a poor prognosis subgroup, even with CAR T-cell therapy. It will be important to determine if patients with primary progression have increased benefit from CAR T-cell therapy if it is provided at first relapse rather than after 2 or more prior lines of therapy. Our study suggests that mechanisms of tumor resistance to CAR T-cell therapy may be present in some patients from the time of upfront therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Chavez: AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merk: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys, Bayer, Karyopharm, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie, TeneoBio, and Pfizer: Consultancy; MorphoSys, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Kite, a Gilead Company, and Epizyme: Speakers Bureau. Shah: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Incyte: Research Funding; Acrotech/Spectrum: Honoraria; BeiGene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Expenses, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Expenses; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Servier Genetics: Other; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Expenses; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Nishihori: Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Lazaryan: Kadmon: Consultancy; Avrobio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Humanigen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Davila: Precigen: Research Funding. Locke: Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Cowen: Consultancy; EcoR1: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy. Gaballa: Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Jain: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria.

scholarly journals Evaluating Hematologist's Knowledge of CAR T-Cell Therapy in Hematologic Malignancies

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2269-2269
Author(s):  
Lauren Willis ◽  
Sara R. Fagerlie ◽  
Sattva S. Neelapu
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T

Abstract Background: The objective of this study was to assess current clinical practices of hematologist/oncologist (hem/onc) specialists related to chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in hematologic malignancies, in order to identify knowledge, competency, and practice gaps and barriers to optimal care. Methods: A continuing medical education (CME)-certified clinical practice assessment consisting of 25 multiple choice questions was developed to measure knowledge, skills, attitudes, and competence of hem/onc specialists regarding CAR T-cell therapy. The survey instrument was made available online to physicians without monetary compensation or charge. Respondent confidentiality was maintained, and responses were de-identified and aggregated prior to analyses. The activity launched on December 22, 2017 with global distribution, and participant responses are still being collected at the time of abstract submission. Results: At the time of this report there are 192 hem/onc activity participants, collection is on-going. Demographics are listed in Table 1 and levels of confidence and barriers to incorporating CAR T-cell therapy are listed in Table 2.Foundational KnowledgeSub-optimal knowledge was demonstrated in the area of CAR components, dosing, and FDA-approved indications.Over half (61%) could not correctly identify the components of a CAR construct (antigen-specific domain and the signaling domain).Almost half (45%) of the participants did not recognize that currently approved CAR T-cell therapies are dosed as a single infusion.25% demonstrated inaccurate knowledge by recommending patients wait 4 weeks after CAR T-cell infusion before driving.Over half (62%) of participants could not identify the FDA-approved indication for axicabtagene ciloleucel.Knowledge of Clinical Trial DataVery low awareness of efficacy data seen with various CAR T-cell products used to treat R/R B-cell ALL (ELIANA trial), R/R DLBCL (ZUMA-1, JULIET, TRANSCEND trials).Only 32% identified the correct CR/CRi rate seen with tisagenlecleucel in the ELIANA trial.Only 25% correctly identified the CR rate seen with axicabtagene ciloleucel in the ZUMA-1 trial.Only 32% demonstrated knowledge of the 6-month DFS rate for patients in the JULIET trial that had a CR at 3 months.Only 25% identified the association between the dose of JCAR017 and response rates from the TRANSCEND trial.Knowledge and Competence Managing Adverse EventsLack of competence recognizing and treating CAR T-cell associated adverse events such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity.Almost half (44%) could not identify signs of CRS associated with CAR T-cell therapy and 43% lack knowledge that elevated serum C-reactive protein (CRP) is associated with the highest level of CRS (in patients with lymphoma receiving axicabtagene ciloleucel).41% could not identify that the mechanism of tocilizumab is to block IL-6 signaling.Over a third (35%) were unable to identify signs/symptoms/causes of neurotoxicity associated with CAR T-cell therapy.More than half of the learners (54%) could not identify the appropriate role of corticosteroid therapy after CAR T-cell administration in managing CRS and neurotoxicity. Conclusions: This activity found knowledge and competence deficits for hem/onc practitioners related to using CAR T-cell therapy for the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies. Additionally, the activity demonstrated large gaps in confidence discussing CAR T-cell therapy with patients/families and managing adverse events. There is sub-optimal awareness of CAR T-cell foundational knowledge, clinical trial data, and recognition of common therapy related adverse events and management strategies. Additional education is needed to improve the knowledge, competence, and confidence of academic and community hem/onc specialists who care for patients with hematologic malignancies receiving CAR T-cell therapy as well as strategies for integrating novel agents into clinical practice. Disclosures Neelapu: Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unum Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document