scholarly journals Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Patients with Late Relapses Who Are Transplant-Eligible Have Excellent Outcomes and May Represent Unique Biology

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 2499-2499
Author(s):  
Henry S. Ngu ◽  
Laura K Hilton ◽  
Judith Anula Rodrigo ◽  
Diego Villa ◽  
Alina S. Gerrie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Late Relapse ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T

Abstract Introduction Approximately 30-40% of patients (pts) with DLBCL have refractory disease or relapse following R-CHOP. The majority of pts will experience disease progression or relapse early (within 1-2 years), although ~20% experience late relapse >24 months (m) from time of initial diagnosis. Salvage therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has been standard therapy for transplant-eligible pts, regardless of timing of documented relapsed/refractory (rel/refr) disease. Recent studies exploring the use of CAR T-cell therapy in primary refractory and early relapsed pts is challenging this paradigm. However, pts with late relapses were omitted from these studies. Interestingly, emerging molecular data suggest tumors of pts with late relapses exhibit significant genetic diversity from the initial diagnostic tumor, and may in fact represent unique biology (Hilton et al, ICML 2021). We aimed to evaluate outcomes in transplant-eligible pts with rel/refr DLBCL according to timing of documented rel/refr disease in a population-based setting to further explore biological and treatment implications. Method We identified all pts within the BC Cancer Centre for Lymphoid Cancer Database, age 18 to 75y, diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed DLBCL treated with curative-intent R-CHOP-like immunochemotherapy between 2001-2020 with documented rel/refr disease. Only transplant-eligible pts treated with standard salvage immunochemotherapy with intention for hematopoeitic stem cell transolantation (HSCT) were included. Patients with incidental discordant bone marrow involvement with low grade B-cell lymphoma were included, but transformed pts and those with isolated central nervous system relapse were excluded. Pts were divided into three cohorts based on timing of documented rel/refr disease from time of initial diagnosis: (1) rel/refr < 12m; (2) relapse between 12 to 24 m; (3) late relapse >24 m. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of documented rel/refr disease and from the time of HSCT in pts undergoing SCT. Results 225 pts meeting the stated eligibily criteria were identified. Clinical characteristics at initial diagnosis were as follows: median age 58y (range 19-72y); 70% male; 46 % IPI score 3-5. Timing of rel/refr disease from initial diagnosis was: rel/refr <12m, n= 145, 64%; rel 12-24m, n=32, 14%; late relapse >24m, n= 48, 21%. 92% of pts with late relapse had biopsy-proven relapsed DLBCL. Approximately 95% of pts received a platinum-based salvage regimen, most commonly GDP (gemcitabine, dexamethasone, cisplatin) +/- rituximab (n= 200 (89%). The overall response rate (ORR) to initial salvage therapy was 54% (14% CR, 40% PR). Response rate to salvage therapy according to timing of rel/refr disease was as follows: rel/refr <12m 41%; rel 12-24m 71%; relapse >24m 82%, with patients with later relapses having higher liklihood of response (p < 0.01). In total, 122 pts (54%) underwent HSCT; 118 ASCT; 4 allo-SCT. The likelihood of proceeding to HSCT based on timing of rel/refr disease was significantly lower in pts with refr/rel <12m (p < 0.01): rel/refr <12m, 43%; rel 12-24m 72%; rel >24m 75%. Pts who did not proceed to HSCT were treated according to the discretion of their treating physicians, with 9 pts proceeding to CAR T-cell therapy. 8 additional patients received CAR T-cell therapy post-SCT failure. The medium follow-up time from documented rel/refr disease was 5.8y (range 0.1-14.5y). The 5-y OS was strongly correlated with timing of rel/refr disease (p<0.001): rel/refr <12m 15.8%, rel 12-24m 33%, rel >24m 58.5%. (Fig. A) The 5-y OS from HSCT in pts undergoing SCT was similarly correlated with timing of rel/refr disease (P<0.001): rel/refr < 12m 31.4%, rel 12-24m 46.5%; rel <24m 65.4%. (Fig. B) Conclusion In pts with transplant-eligible rel/refr DLBCL, response to salvage therapy, likelihood of proceeding to HSCT and OS are strongly correlated with timing of documented rel/refr disease. Pts with late relapses >24m after diagnosis have notably favorable outcomes, compared with pts who experience earlier relapse (rel/refr <12m and rel 12-24m), supporting emerging evidence that these patients represent a subgroup with distinct biology with greater chemo-sensitivity. These data support the early use of alternative therapies (such as CAR T-cell therapy) in pts with earlier relapse. Correlative studies to delineate the biological diversity of rel/refr DLBCL are underway. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Villa: Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; NanoString Technologies: Honoraria. Gerrie: Sandoz: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Astrazeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Song: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Slack: Seagen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Savage: Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Other: Institutional clinical trial funding; Genentech: Research Funding. Scott: Abbvie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rich/Genentech: Research Funding; BC Cancer: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing assigning DLBCL COO by gene expression profiling--licensed to NanoString Technologies. Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling. ; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Patent describing measuring the proliferation signature in MCL using gene expression profiling.; Celgene: Consultancy. Sehn: Novartis: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Debiopharm: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Characteristics of Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Burkitt Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL): Impact on the Feasibility of CAR-T Cell Therapy

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5352-5352
Author(s):  
Sonia Fortin Gamero ◽  
Yi Lin ◽  
Saad S. Kenderian ◽  
N. Nora Bennani ◽  
Gita Thanarajasingam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Mayo Clinic ◽  
Salvage Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Board ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T

Background Burkitt NHL (BL) is a rare hematologic malignancy that occurs in younger adults and is highly curable with aggressive chemoimmunotherapy induction regimens. Unfortunately, patients that are refractory or relapse after these regimens fare poorly and treatment guidelines are not well established. The typical approach is with standard platinum-based salvage regimens; those who obtain a complete remission (CR) become eligible for autologous or allogeneic stem cell transplantation (SCT). Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy and bispecific antibodies offer potential novel approaches for these patients, especially those who are unable to achieve remission in order to proceed with SCT; however, CAR-T therapy is not approved nor even tested in BL other than promising single case reports (Avigdor A, Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018 May 24). The goal of this study was to learn the clinical features and outcome of R/R BL in order to design a prospective strategy for novel therapy use in relapsed/refractory (R/R) BL patients. Methods We reviewed the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma database to find cases of BL diagnosed and treated between 1/1/2000 - 9/30/2018. Forty-two cases were identified and 32 (76%) entered CR and never relapsed; 10 (24%) did not respond or relapsed and are the focus of this report. Demographic, clinical response to treatment regimens, and long-term outcomes were extracted from the Mayo Clinic electronic medical record. Results The 10 patients with R/R BL had a median age of 41 years (range, 28-59); all had received aggressive chemoimmunotherapy induction regimens; 7 were primary refractory and 3 relapsed within 3 months (2-4) of achieving first CR. All 3 patients that relapsed did so in the central nervous system (CNS) despite receiving CNS prophylaxis with their induction therapy regimen. The response to salvage therapy was 30% (3/10) with 10% CR and 30% (3/10) proceeded to autologous SCT (no patients made it to allogenic SCT). The median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from diagnosis of all 10 patients was 4 months (1-9) and 70% (7/10) died within 6±4 months from date of relapse. The 3 patients with relapsed BL survived 7, 10, and17 months from date of relapse. The 3 patients who did survive to receive a SCT lived 2, 4, and 13 months from date of SCT. None of the 10 patients survived past 26 months from date of diagnosis. Conclusions Patients with R/R BL represent an uncommon and unique subset of aggressive NHL that require a new therapeutic approach such as CAR-T. Our study demonstrates the very poor outcome with traditional salvage therapies and the very short OS of these young, otherwise healthy patients. We recommend that these patients be considered as emergencies and referred promptly for novel therapies such as CAR-T trials at the very first sign of treatment failure. Waiting with the intent of attaining response to traditional therapies is futile. Insurance approval initiation and harvesting of T-cells should be rapidly performed, preferably prior to initiating salvage therapy, given the rapid clinical deterioration and demise of these patients. Disclosures Kenderian: Lentigen: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Humanigen: Other: Scientific advisory board , Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Bennani:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Nowakowski:Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Identifies Expression Patterns Associated with Clinical Responses to Dual-Targeted CAR-T Cell Therapy

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 33-34
Author(s):  
Tyce Kearl ◽  
Ao Mei ◽  
Ryan Brown ◽  
Bryon Johnson ◽  
Dina Schneider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cells ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cells ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T ◽  
Clinical Responses

INTRODUCTION: Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy is emerging as a powerful treatment for relapsed or refractory B cell lymphomas. However, a variety of escape mechanisms prevent CAR-T cell therapy from being more uniformly effective. To better understand mechanisms of CAR-T failure among patients treated with dual-targeted CAR-T cells, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing of samples from a Phase 1 trial (NCT03019055). The clinical trial used anti-CD20, anti-CD19 CAR-T cells for the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. Clinical responses from this study are reported independently (Shah et al. in press in Nat Med). While robust clinical responses occurred, not all patients had similar outcomes. In single-antigen specific CAR-T cells, mechanisms of resistance include antigen down-regulation, phenotype switch, or PD-1 inhibition (Song et al. Int J Mol Sci 2019). However, very little is understood about the mechanisms of failure that are specific to dual-targeted CAR-T cells. Interestingly, loss of CD19 antigen was not observed in treatment failures in the study. METHODS: De-identified patient samples were obtained as peripheral blood mononuclear cells on the day of harvest ("pre" samples), at the peak of in vivo CAR-T cell expansion which varied from day 10 to day 21 after infusion ("peak" samples), and on day 28 post-infusion ("d28" samples). The CAR-T cell infusion product was obtained on day 14 of on-site manufacturing ("product" samples). All samples were cryopreserved and single cell preparation was performed with batched samples using 10X Genomics kits. Subsequent analysis was performed in R studio using the Seurat package (Butler et al. Nat Biotech 2018) with SingleR being used to identify cell types in an unbiased manner (Aran et al. Nat Immunol 2019). RESULTS: We found that distinct T cell clusters were similarly represented in the responder and non-responder samples. The patients' clinical responses did not depend on the level of CAR expression or the percentage of CAR+ cells in the infusion product. At day 28, however, there was a considerable decrease in the percentage of CAR+ cells in the responder samples possibly due to contracture of the CAR+ T cell compartment after successful clearance of antigen-positive cells. In all samples, the CAR-T cell population shifted from a CD4+ to a CD8+ T cell predominant population after infusion. We performed differentially-expressed gene analyses (DEG) of the total and CAR-T cells. In the pre samples, genes associated with T-cell stimulation and cell-mediated cytotoxicity were highly expressed in the responder samples. Since the responders had an effective anti-tumor response, we expected these pathways to also be enriched for in the peak samples; however, this was not the case. We hypothesize that differential expression of the above genes was masked due to homeostatic expansion of the T cells following conditioning chemotherapy. Based on the DEG results, we next interrogated specific genes associated with cytotoxicity, T cell co-stimulation, and checkpoint protein inhibition. Cytotoxicity-associated genes were highly expressed among responder CD8+ T cells in the pre samples, but not in the other samples (Figure 1). Few differences were seen in specific co-stimulatory and checkpoint inhibitor genes at any timepoint in the T cell clusters. We performed gene set enrichment analyses (GSEA). Gene sets representing TCR, IFN-gamma, and PD-1 signaling were significantly increased in the pre samples of the responders but not at later time points or in the infusion products. DISCUSSION: We found a correlation between expression of genes associated with T cell stimulation and cytotoxicity in pre-treatment patient samples and subsequent response to CAR-T cell therapy. This demonstrates that the existing transcriptome of T cells prior to CAR transduction critically shapes anti-tumor responses. Further work will discover biomarkers that can be used to select patients expected to have better clinical outcomes. Figure 1 Disclosures Johnson: Miltenyi Biotec: Research Funding; Cell Vault: Research Funding. Schneider:Lentigen, a Miltenyi Biotec Company: Current Employment, Patents & Royalties. Dropulic:Lentigen, a Miltenyi Biotec Company: Current Employment, Patents & Royalties: CAR-T immunotherapy. Hari:BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Shah:Incyte: Consultancy; Cell Vault: Research Funding; Lily: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Verastim: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Research Funding.

scholarly journals Fever Characteristics Associated with Toxicity and Outcome after Anti-CD19 CAR T-Cell Therapy for Aggressive Lymphoma

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1612-1612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamza Hashmi ◽  
Alicia Darwin ◽  
Christina A Bachmeier ◽  
Julio Chavez ◽  
Bijal Shah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T ◽  
Grade 3

Background: Fever is a cardinal symptom of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) after CAR T-cell therapy with 84% of patients experiencing fever on the ZUMA-1 trial of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel). Knowledge of the patterns of fever and associated symptoms may inform the clinical management of these patients. Methods: We performed a single center retrospective study in 78 patients receiving axi-cel for large B cell lymphoma (LBCL) as of 12/31/2018. We evaluated all the patients who developed fever during lymphodepleting chemotherapy with fludarabine (Flu) and cyclophosphamide (Cy), after CAR T-cell infusion, and after administration of tocilizumab (toci); and analyzed the association of fever with toxicity rates (grade 3+ CRS and neurotoxicity) and efficacy [overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate 6 months post CAR T-cell infusion]. Fever was defined per the Lee criteria [equal to or greater than 38 °C], CRS used the modified Lee criteria and neurotoxicity used the CARTOX grading system. Results: Fever occurred in 71/78 (91%) of patients. Rates of grade 3+ CRS and neurotoxicity were 9% (7/78) and 26% (20/78) respectively. The CR rate at 6 months was 41% (32/78). Toxicities and outcomes in patients with the described fever characteristics are shown in the Table. During lymphodepletion with Flu/Cy, fever was observed in 11% (9/78) of patients. Fever occurred within 24 hours of axi-cel infusion in 47% (37/78) and within 72 hours of axi-cel infusion in 71% (55/78) of the patients. In total, 41% (32/78) of patients were treated with anti-IL6R therapy (tocilizumab; toci) for CAR T toxicity. After the first dose of toci, fever recurred in 69% of patients (22/32), of which 34% (11/32) experienced fever recurrence within 24 hours of toci infusion. Conclusions: This is the first study to our knowledge that describes in detail the characteristics of fever after CAR T-cell therapy with axi-cel. Fever was common and occurred in 71% of the patients within 72 hours of axi-cel infusion. When toci was used, fever recurred in a majority of patients (69%) and in 1/3 of patients the fever recurred within 24 hours of toci infusion. These descriptive data may be used by clinicians to inform their expectations of fever occurring after treatment with axi-cel and/or toci. Table Disclosures Bachmeier: Kite/Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Chavez:Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau. Shah:AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Spectrum/Astrotech: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene/Juno: Honoraria. Pinilla Ibarz:Novartis: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Teva: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Nishihori:Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. Lazaryan:Kadmon: Consultancy. Davila:Bellicum: Consultancy; Anixa: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Atara: Research Funding. Locke:Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor. Jain:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy.

scholarly journals Outcomes with "Off the Shelf" Allogeneic CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy for Hematological Malignancies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Blood ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4831-4831
Author(s):  
Muhammad Umair Mushtaq ◽  
Moazzam Shahzad ◽  
Ali Hussain ◽  
Amna Y Shah ◽  
Raheel S Siddiqui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
T Cell ◽  
Cell Therapy ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T Cell ◽  
Car T Cell Therapy ◽  
Car T

Abstract Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy is an adoptive T cell immunotherapy that employs the genetically modified T cell to attack the cancer cell. It is widely studied across various hematological and solid organ malignancies. Several autologous CD19 CAR-T cell therapy constructs are now approved for various B cell lymphomas, including aggressive B cell lymphomas, indolent follicular lymphoma and mantle cell lymphoma, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Autologous CD19 CAR-T cell therapy has unprecedented success in relapsed and refractory disease. Long time to manufacture (2-5 weeks) and manufacture failure are challenges associated with risk of interim death and deterioration of CAR-T candidates with rapidly progressive disease. T cell fitness of the autologous product in heavily pretreated patients is also potentially compromised. To overcome these shortcomings, universal "off the shelf" allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy constructs are being developed and studied. Donor sources include healthy donors and cord or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). These CAR-T constructs have additional gene modifications to mitigate the risk of rejection and graft versus host disease (GVHD). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of allogeneic CD19 CAR-T cell therapy. Methods: Four databases (Web of Science/MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials) were searched for this systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines using MeSH terms and keywords for "Receptors, Chimeric antigen" OR "Artificial-T-cell receptor" OR "immunotherapy, adoptive" OR "CD-19". Our search produced 3506 articles and after removing duplicates, 2243 records were screened. After excluding reviews and irrelevant articles, we included 8 prospective trials of allogeneic CD-19 CAR-T cell therapy enrolling two or more than two patients from Jan 2013 to Nov 2020. We also searched ASH 2020 abstracts to include any additional trials. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using NIH quality assessment tool. Inter-study variance was calculated using the Der Simonian-Laird Estimator. Proportions along with 95% confidence Interval (CI) were extracted to compute pooled analysis using the 'meta' package by Schwarzer et al. in the R programming language (version 4.16-2). Results: A total of 68 patients from 8 studies were evaluated. Median age was 22.5 (4.8-64) years. (Table 1) The median follow-up time was 10 (2-18) months with median number of prior therapies of 3.2 (2-11) as reported by 5 studies. Underlying diagnosis was acute lymphocytic lymphoma (n=49, 72%), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (n=6, 9%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n=13, 19%). The pooled overall response rate (ORR) was 77% (95% CI 0.63-0.89, I 2 =22%, n=68) with a complete response (CR) of 75% (95% CI 0.57-0.90, I 2 =48%, n=65). The pooled incidence of cytokine release syndrome grade I/II and grade III/IV was 53% (95% CI 0.16-0.89, I 2 =89%, n=65) and 10% (95% CI 0.01-0.25, I 2 =50%, n=65) respectively. Neurotoxicity grade I/II was 12% (95%CI 0.01-0.30, I 2 =47%, p=0.09, n=47) and GVHD grade I/II was 8% (95%CI 0.01-0.19, I 2 =0%, p=0.57 n=53). None of the clinical trials reported the duration of response. Conclusion: "Off the shelf" universal CAR-T therapy is early in development. Our available data suggest that allogeneic CD19 CAR-T constructs offer high ORR and CR rates with acceptable safety profiles. GVHD was mainly low grade (grade I-II). Given these findings, allogeneic CAR-T cell therapy is an attractive option to improve timely access compared to available autologous therapy. Extensive preclinical research to develop novel constructs and several phase I/II clinical trials are ongoing to shape the future of "off the shelf" CAR-T cell therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Hoffmann: Pharmcyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Abhyankar: Incyte/Therakos: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk: Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Therapeutics: Research Funding; EcoR1 Capital: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Astelllas Pharma: Research Funding; Kite/ Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel accommodations, expense, Kite a Gilead company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Allovir: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document