Search

Summary Radiotherapy (RT) has potential synergistic effects with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T but is not widely used as bridging therapy due to logistical challenges and lack of standardised protocols. We analysed RT bridging in a multicentre national cohort of large B‐cell lymphoma patients approved for 3L axicabtagene ciloleucel or tisagenlecleucel across 12 UK centres. Of 763 approved patients, 722 were leukapheresed, 717 had data available on bridging therapy. 169/717 (24%) received RT bridging, 129 as single modality and 40 as combined modality treatment (CMT). Of 169 patients, 65.7% had advanced stage, 36.9% bulky disease, 86.5% elevated LDH, 41.7% international prognostic index (IPI) ≥3 and 15.2% double/triple hit at the time of approval. Use of RT bridging varied from 11% to 32% between centres and increased over time. Vein‐to‐vein time and infusion rate did not differ between bridging modalities. RT‐bridged patients had favourable outcomes with 1‐year progression‐free survival (PFS) of 56% for single modality and 47% for CMT (1‐year PFS 43% for systemic bridging). This is the largest cohort of LBCL patients receiving RT bridging prior to CAR T reported to date. Our results show that RT bridging can be safely and effectively used even in advanced stage and high‐risk disease, with low dropout rates and excellent outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The success of CD19 Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T‐cell therapy in large B‐cell lymphoma (LBCL) has been partially offset by toxicity and logistical challenges, which off‐the‐shelf agents like CD20xCD3 bispecific antibodies might potentially overcome. However, when using CAR T outcomes as the ʽstandard‐of‐care comparator̕ for relapsed/refractory (r/r) LBCL, a potential learning curve with implementing a novel, complex therapy like CAR T needs to be considered. To address this, we analysed 726 UK patients intended to be treated with CD19 CAR T for r/r LBCL and compared outcomes between the first year of the national CAR T programme (Era 1; 2019) and the more recent treatment era (Era 2; 2020–2022). We identified significant improvements for Era 2 versus Era 1 in dropout rate (17% vs. 27%, p = 0.001), progression‐free survival (1‐year PFS 50% vs. 32%, p < 0.001) and overall survival (1‐year OS 60% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). We also observed increased use of bridging therapy, improvement in bridging outcomes, more tocilizumab/corticosteroid use, reduced high‐grade cytokine release syndrome (4% vs. 9%, p = 0.01) and intensive care unit admissions (20% vs. 32%, p = 0.001). Our results demonstrate significant improvement in CAR T outcomes over time, highlighting the importance of using up‐to‐date clinical data when comparing CAR T against new treatment options for r/r LBCL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Large B‐cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients with comorbidities and/or advanced age are increasingly considered for treatment with CD19 CAR T, but data on the clinical benefit of CAR T in the less fit patient population are still limited. We analysed outcomes of consecutive patients approved for treatment with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi‐cel) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa‐cel) by the UK National CAR T Clinical Panel, according to fitness for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). 81/404 (20%) of approved patients were deemed unfit for ASCT. Unfit patients were more likely to receive tisa‐cel versus axi‐cel (52% vs. 48%) compared to 20% versus 80% in ASCT‐fit patients; p < 0.0001. The drop‐out rate from approval to infusion was significantly higher in the ASCT‐unfit group (34.6% vs. 23.5%; p = 0.042). Among infused patients, response rate, progression‐free and overall survival were similar in both cohorts. CAR T was well‐tolerated in ASCT‐unfit patients with an incidence of grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity of 2% and 11%, respectively. Results from this multicentre real‐world cohort demonstrate that CD19 CAR T can be safely delivered in carefully selected older patients and patients with comorbidities who are not deemed suitable for transplant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Claire Roddie, Karl S Peggs UCL Cancer Institute, Department of Hematology, London, UK Abstract: Ipilimumab is a fully human immunoglobulin subclass G1 anticytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-antigen-4 monoclonal antibody. It has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency for use in advanced melanoma following clear evidence of survival benefit in randomized Phase III studies. It is also under investigation as a treatment for other solid tumors such as renal cell, lung, and prostate cancers. The purported mechanism of antitumor activity of ipilimumab is through T-cell activation, and the side effect profile reflects this. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) affect 60% of treated patients and 15% are defined as severe. Fortunately, most irAEs are reversible with early diagnosis and correct management. FDA approval of ipilimumab is dependent on the careful execution of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, with the aim of increasing awareness amongst patients and clinicians of the immunological risks of treatment, and providing algorithms for management of irAEs as they develop. Ipilimumab is one of the first immunotherapies to become widely available in the setting of solid tumors, and ongoing research aims to elucidate optimal dosing, optimal scheduling, and expanded access to ipilimumab as an adjuvant or maintenance therapy where appropriate. The identification of clinical correlates or biomarkers to identify those likely to benefit from this high-cost therapy is a top priority. Keywords: ipilimumab, cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-antigen-4, advanced melanoma, metastatic, overall survival

B Introduction: b The TRANSFORM primary analysis (PA; NCT03575351) confirmed the superior efficacy of liso-cel versus SOC as second-line (2L) therapy in patients (pts) with primary refractory (refr) or early relapsed (rel) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) (Abramson et al. I Blood i , 2022). LISOCABTAGENE MARALEUCEL (LISO-CEL) VERSUS STANDARD OF CARE (SOC) AS SECOND-LINE THERAPY IN LARGE B-CELL LYMPHOMA (TRANSFORM STUDY): SUBGROUP ANALYSES BY PRIOR THERAPY RESPONSE Baseline characteristics in the refr and rel subgroups, respectively, were generally balanced: median LDH (U/L; liso-cel, 228.5 and 225; SOC, 259 and 259); median SPD (cm SP 2 sp ; liso-cel, 11 and 12; SOC, 15.5 and 18); high-grade B-cell lymphoma (liso-cel, 27% and 16%; SOC, 27% and 9%); diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (liso-cel, 58% and 56%; SOC, 49% and 73%). [Extracted from the article]

High-precision, individualised RT protocols allowed successful tumour de-bulking with limited toxicity, providing the basis to develop specific RT bridging protocols in lymphoma. RADIOTHERAPY BRIDGING IN LARGE B-CELL LYMPHOMA PATIENTS RECEIVING CD19 CAR-T - THE UK EXPERIENCE B Background: b Radiotherapy (RT) has potential synergistic effects with CAR T but is not widely used as bridging therapy for lymphoma patients due to logistical challenges, uncertainty about patient selection and lack of standardised protocols. [Extracted from the article]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article on the Hodgkin transformation of small lymphocytic lymphoma in the gastrointestinal tract.

Bridging therapy (BT) after leukapheresis is required in most relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. Bendamustine-containing regimens are a potential BT option. We aimed to assess if this agent had a negative impact on CAR-T outcomes when it was administered as BT. We included R/R LBCL patients from six centers who received systemic BT after leukapheresis from February 2019 to September 2022; patients who only received steroids or had pre-apheresis bendamustine exposure were excluded. Patients were divided into two BT groups, with and without bendamustine. Separate safety and efficacy analyses were carried out for axi-cel and tisa-cel. Of 243 patients who received BT, bendamustine (benda) was included in 62 (26%). There was a higher rate of BT progressors in the non-benda group (62% vs. 45%, p  = 0.02). Concerning CAR-T efficacy, complete responses were comparable for benda versus non-benda BT cohorts with axi-cel (70% vs. 53%, p  = 0.12) and tisa-cel (44% vs. 36%, p  = 0.70). Also, 12-month progression-free and overall survival were not significantly different between BT groups with axi-cel (56% vs. 43% and 71% vs. 63%) and tisa-cel (25% vs. 26% and 52% vs. 48%); there were no differences when BT response was considered. CAR T-cell expansion for each construct was similar between BT groups. Regarding safety, CRS G ≥3 (6% vs. 6%, p  = 0.79), ICANS G ≥3 (15% vs. 17%, p  = 0.68), severe infections, and neutropenia post-infusion were comparable among BT regimens. BT with bendamustine-containing regimens is safe for patients requiring disease control during CAR T-cell manufacturing., Competing Interests: Gloria Iacoboni: Consultancy and Honoraria: Novartis, Roche, Kite/Gilead, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Abbvie, Janssen, Sandoz, Miltenyi, AstraZeneca. Mario A. Sánchez‐Salinas Honoraria for presentations: Kite. Support for attending meetings: Takeda. Kai Rejeski: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding, Consultancy, Honoraria and travel support; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pierre‐Fabre: travel support. Mi Kwon Consulting and lectures: Gilead, Jazz, Pfizer. Katarzyna A. Jalowiec Honoraria: Kite/Gilead. Rafael Hernani: Research: Gilead. Travel support: Gilead. Honoraria: Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Novartis. Viktoria Blumenberg: BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Claire Roddie: Honoraria from Kite/Gilead, Novartis, BMS, Amgen. Javier Delgado‐Serrano: Honoraria from Kite‐Gilead, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen. Rebeca Bailén: Speaker and travel: Kite. Cecilia Carpio: Regeneron: Consultancy/Advisory, BMS: Consultancy/Advisory, Takeda: Consultancy/Advisory/Honoraria, Novartis: Honoraria. Marion Subklewe: receives industry research support from Amgen, Bristol‐Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Miltenyi Biotec, Morphosys, Novartis, Roche, Seattle Genetics, and Takeda, and serves as a consultant/advisor to AvenCell, CDR‐Life, Ichnos Sciences, Incyte Biosciences, Janssen, Molecular Partners, and Takeda. She serves on the speakers' bureau at Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS/Celgene, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. Maeve O'Reilly: Honoraria from Kite, Novartis, Janssen. Advisory boards Kite and Autolus. Travel grant Kite and Novartis. Pere Barba: Allogene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Miltenyi: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Nektar: Honoraria., (© 2024 The Author(s). HemaSphere published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Hematology Association.)

Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous CD19 CAR T-cell product, approved for relapsed/refractory (r/r) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). In ZUMA-2, brexu-cel demonstrated impressive responses in patients failing ≥2 lines, including a bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with an overall and complete response rate of 93% and 67%, respectively. Here, we report our real-world intention-to-treat (ITT) outcomes for brexu-cel in consecutive, prospectively approved patients, from 12 institutions in the United Kingdom between February 2021 and June 2023, with a focus on feasibility, efficacy, and tolerability. Of 119 approved, 104 underwent leukapheresis and 83 received a brexu-cel infusion. Progressive disease (PD) and/or manufacturing (MF) were the most common reasons for failure to reach harvest and/or infusion. For infused patients, best overall and complete response rates were 87% and 81%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) for infused patients was 21 months (10.1-NA) with a 6- and 12-month PFS of 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71-89) and 62% (95% CI, 49-73), respectively. ≥Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity occurred in 12% and 22%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, inferior PFS was associated with male sex, bulky disease, ECOG PS > 1 and previous MF. Cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 6%, 15%, and 25% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, and mostly attributable to infection. Outcomes for infused patients in the UK are comparable to ZUMA-2 and other real-world reports. However, ITT analysis highlights a significant dropout due to PD and/or MF. NRM events warrant further attention., Competing Interests: Maeve A. O'Reilly: honoraria from Kite Gilead, Novartis, and Janssen. Advisory boards Kite Gilead and Autolus. Conference/travel support Kite Gilead. William Wilson: No COI. David Burns: Kite Gilead consultancy fees and support for educational meetings. Andrea Kuhnl: Kite Gilead conference support, honoraria, advisory board, Novartis: honoraria, research funding, Advisory board: Roche, Abbvie, BMS. Frances Seymour: No COI. Ben Uttenthal: No COI. Caroline Besley: Honoraria: Kite, Janssen, Novartis and Takeda. Rajesh Alajangi: No COI. Thomas Creasey: No COI. Shankara Paneesha: No COI. Johnathon Elliot: No COI. Carlos Gonzalez Arias: Kite Gilead conference support, honoraria, advisory board, research funding; Novartis conference support, honoraria, advisory board; BMS advisory board. Sunil Iyengar: conference support Beigene, BMS, Takeda. Speaker fees Kite Gilead, Takeda. Advisory boards Kite, MSD. Matthew R. Wilson: Honoraria/speaker fees: Kite/Gilead, Janssen, Sobi, Takeda, Veriton Pharma, AstraZeneca, Roche. Conference/travel support: Gilead, Janssen, Kite, Takeda, AstraZeneca. Alison Delaney: Kite Gilead conference support. Lourdes Rubio: No COI. Jonathan Lambert: advisory boards: Kite‐Gilead and Blueprint Pharmaceuticals; BMS, Takeda and Novartis: conference support. Khalil Begg: No COI. Stephen Boyle: Honoraria Kite Gilead. Kathleen P. L. Cheok: No COI. Graham P. Collins: Kite Gilead speaker fees, advisory board. Claire Roddie: Advisory boards and speakers fees Novartis, Kite Gilead, BMS, Amgen, Autolus. Rod Johnson: Kite Gilead consultancy fees, support for educational meetings. Robin Sanderson: Kite Gilead speakers bureau, honoraria, conference travel, Novartis speakers bureau, honoraria, conference travel., (© 2024 The Authors. HemaSphere published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Hematology Association.)

Over 60% of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients who receive chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells will experience disease progression. There is no standard next line of therapy and information in this setting is scarce and heterogeneous. We analyzed 387 R/R LBCL patients who progressed after CAR T cells from July 2018 until March 2022 in Spain and the United Kingdom. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.3 months, with significant differences according to the interval between infusion and progression (<2 months [1.9 months], 2-6 months [5.2 months], and >6 months [not reached]). After progression, 237 (61%) patients received treatment. Focusing on the first subsequent therapy, overall (complete) response rates were 67% (38%) for polatuzumab-bendamustine-rituximab (POLA), 51% (36%) for bispecific antibodies (BsAb), 45% (35%) for radiotherapy (RT), 33% (26%) for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), 25% (0%) for lenalidomide (LENA), and 25% (14%) for chemotherapy (CT). In terms of survival, 12-month progression-free survival and OS was 36.2% and 51.0% for POLA, 32.0% and 50.1% for BsAb, 30.8% and 37.5% for RT, 29.9% and 27.8% for ICI, 7.3% and 20.8% for LENA, and 6.1% and 18.3% for CT. Thirty-two (14%) patients received an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant with median OS not reached after a median follow-up of 15.1 months. In conclusion, patients with R/R LBCL who progress within the first 2 months after CAR T-cell therapy have dismal outcomes. Novel targeted agents, such as polatuzumab and BsAbs, can achieve prolonged survival after CAR T-cell therapy failure., Competing Interests: Gloria Iacoboni: Honoraria and travel support: Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, Abbvie, Autolus, Sandoz, Miltenyi, and AstraZeneca. Maeve O'Reilly has served on advisory boards and received honoraria from Kite/Gilead and Novartis. Mi Kwon: Consulting and lectures: Gilead and Jazz, Pfizer. Javier Delgado: Honoraria from Kite‐Gilead, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen. Claire Roddie has served on advisory boards and received honoraria from Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and BMS. Manuel Guerreiro: Consultancy: Novartis, Kite, BMS, Pierre Fabre, and MSD. Alberto Mussetti: BMS: consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; Gilead: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Robin Sanderson: Kite/Gilead and Novartis—speakers fees, honoraria, conference travel. Sunil Iyengar: Abbvie—Conference support; Beigene—advisory board; BMS—Conference support; Janssen—Speaker fees; Kite—advisory board; Takeda—advisory board, speaker fees, and conference support. Juan‐Manuel Sancho: Honoraria as speaker in medical education activities from Roche, Gilead‐Kite, Celgene‐BMS, Janssen, Novartis, and Incyte. Honoraria as participant in advisory boards or consulting for Roche, Gilead‐Kite, Celgene‐BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Incyte, Lilly, Beigene, and Myltenyi Biomedicine. Pere Barba: Advisory board and consultancy: Allogene, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Kite/Gilead, Incyte, Miltenyi Biomedicine, Novartis, Nektar, Pfizer, and Pierre Fabre. Rafael Hernani: Research: Gilead. Travel support: Gilead. Honoraria: Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, and Novartis. Anna Sureda: Honoraria from Takeda, BMS, Merck, Janssen, Sanofi, Roche, Novartis, and Gilead. Alejandro Martin Garcia‐Sancho: Consultancy for Roche, BMS/Celgene, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Lilly, ADC Therapeutics America, Miltenyi, Ideogen, Abbvie, and Sobi. Honorario from Roche, BMS/Celgene, Janssen, Gilead/Kite, Takeda, Eusa Pharma, and Abbvie. Pau Abrisqueta: consulting/advisory: Roche, Genmab, Janssen, BMS, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene; Honoraria: Roche, Genmab, Janssen, BMS, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Incyte. Andrea Kuhnl has served on advisory boards and received honoraria from Kite/Gilead, Novartis, and BMS. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024 The Authors. HemaSphere published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. on behalf of European Hematology Association.)

CAR-T cell therapies have consolidated their position over the last decade as an effective alternative to conventional chemotherapies for the treatment of a number of hematological malignancies. With an exponential increase in the number of commercial therapies and hundreds of phase 1 trials exploring CAR-T cell efficacy in different settings (including autoimmunity and solid tumors), demand for manufacturing capabilities in recent years has considerably increased. In this review, we explore the current landscape of CAR-T cell manufacturing and discuss some of the challenges limiting production capacity worldwide. We describe the latest technical developments in GMP production platform design to facilitate the delivery of a range of increasingly complex CAR-T cell products, and the challenges associated with translation of new scientific developments into clinical products for patients. We explore all aspects of the manufacturing process, namely early development, manufacturing technology, quality control, and the requirements for industrial scaling. Finally, we discuss the challenges faced as a small academic team, responsible for the delivery of a high number of innovative products to patients. We describe our experience in the setup of an effective bench-to-clinic pipeline, with a streamlined workflow, for implementation of a diverse portfolio of phase 1 trials., Competing Interests: C.R., honoraria Novartis, Kite/Gilead, Miltenyi, BMS/Cengene, Autolus, Amgen, BD Biosciences., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

CAR T-cell therapy has transformed relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL) management and outcomes, but following CAR T infusion, interventions are often needed. In a UK multicentre study, we retrospectively evaluated tisagenlecleucel outcomes in all eligible patients, analysing overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) with standard and stringent definitions, the latter including measurable residual disease (MRD) emergence and further anti-leukaemic therapy. Both intention-to-treat and infused cohorts were considered. We collected data on feasibility of delivery, manufacture, toxicity, cause of therapy failure and followed patients until death from any cause. Of 142 eligible patients, 125 received tisagenlecleucel, 115/125 (92%) achieved complete remission (CR/CRi). Severe cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity occurred in 16/123 (13%) and 10/123 (8.1%), procedural mortality was 3/126 (2.4%). The 2-year intent to treat OS and EFS were 65.2% (95%CI 57.2-74.2%) and 46.5% (95%CI 37.6-57.6%), 2-year intent to treat stringent EFS was 35.6% (95%CI 28.1-44.9%). Median OS was not reached. Sixty-two responding patients experienced CAR T failure by the stringent event definition. Post failure, 1-year OS and standard EFS were 61.2% (95%CI 49.3-75.8) and 55.3% (95%CI 43.6-70.2). Investigation of CAR T-cell therapy for B-ALL delivered on a country-wide basis, including following patients beyond therapy failure, provides clinicians with robust outcome measures. Previously, outcomes post CAR T-cell therapy failure were under-reported. Our data show that patients can be successfully salvaged in this context with good short-term survival., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Not available.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy leads to durable remissions in relapsed B-cell cancers, but treatment-associated immunocompromise leads to a substantial morbidity and mortality risk from atypical infection. Mucormycosis is an aggressive and invasive fungal infection with a mortality risk of 40-80% in patients with haematological malignancies. In this Grand Round, we report a case of mucormycosis in a 54-year-old patient undergoing CAR T-cell therapy who reached complete clinical control of Mucorales with combined aggressive surgical debridement, antifungal pharmacotherapy, and reversal of underlying risk factors, but with substantial morbidity from extensive oro-facial surgery affecting the patient's speech and swallowing. For broader context, we present our case alongside an US Food and Drugs Administration adverse events reporting database analysis and a review of the literature to fully evaluate the clinical burden of mucormycosis in patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy. We discuss epidemiology, clinical features, diagnostic tools, and current frameworks for treatment and prophylaxis. We did this analysis to promote increased vigilance for mucormycosis among physicians specialising in CAR T-cell therapy and microbiologists and to illustrate the importance of early initiation of therapy to effectively manage this condition. Mucormycosis prevention and early diagnosis, through targeted surveillance and mould prevention in patients at highest risk and Mucorales-specific screening assays, is likely to be key to improving outcomes in patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KPLC has received honoraria from Kite and Gilead. CR has received honoraria from Novartis, Kite, Gilead, Amgen, and Bristol Myers Squibb. NS has received research grants from Gilead and honoraria from Gilead and Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) affects over 400,000 patients globally each year, and 30% of patients present with metastatic disease. Current standard of care therapy for metastatic RCC involve TKIs and ICIs, including combinatorial strategies, but this offers only modest clinical benefit. Novel treatment approaches are warranted, and cell-based immunotherapies for RCC hold significant promise. These are currently being tested in the pre-clinical setting and in early phase clinical trials. Here, we review the landscape of cellular immunotherapy for RCC in the context of currently available therapies, with a particular focus on defining the current best antigenic targets, the range of cell therapy products being explored in RCC, and how advanced engineering solutions may further enhance these therapies in the RCC space.

Infection has emerged as the chief cause of non-relapse mortality (NRM) post CD19-targeting chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) therapy. Even though up to 50% of patients may remain infection-free, many suffer multiple severe, life-threatening, or fatal infectious events. The primary aim of this study was to explore severe and life-threatening infections post licensed CAR-T therapy in large B-cell lymphoma, with a focus on the role of disease burden and disease sites in assessing individual risk. We sought to understand the cohort of patients who experience ≥2 infections and those at the highest risk of infectious NRM. Our analysis identifies a higher disease burden after bridging therapy as associated with infection events. Those developing ≥2 infections emerged as a uniquely high-risk cohort, particularly if the second (or beyond) infection occurred during an episode of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) or while on steroids and/or anakinra for ICANS. Herein, we also describe the first reported cases of "CAR-T cold sepsis," a phenomenon characterized by the lack of an appreciable systemic inflammatory response at the time of detection of infection. We propose a risk-based strategy to encourage heightened clinician awareness of cold sepsis, with a view to reducing NRM., Competing Interests: M. O. R.: Honoraria Kite Gilead, Novartis, and Janssen, Advisory boards Kite Gilead and Autolus, conference support Kite Gilead and Novartis. S. M. C.: Employee of AstraZeneca Ltd. N. S.: Speaker fees Kite Gilead, Pfizer and Shionogi, research grant Kite Gilead. K. P. L. C.: Honoraria Kite Gilead. A. K.: Kite Gilead conference support, honoraria, advisory board, Novartis: honoraria, research funding, Advisory board: Roche, Abbvie, BMS. C. R.: Advisory boards and speakers fees Novartis, Kite Gilead, BMS, Amgen, Autolus. R. S.: Kite Gilead speakers bureau, honoraria, conference travel, Novartis speakers bureau, honoraria, conference travel. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024 The Authors. HemaSphere published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Hematology Association.)

Purpose: Approximately 30%-40% of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) infused with CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells achieve durable responses. Consensus guidelines suggest avoiding bendamustine before apheresis, but specific data in this setting are lacking. We report distinct outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy according to previous bendamustine exposure., Methods: The study included CAR T-cell recipients from seven European sites. Safety, efficacy, and CAR T-cell expansion kinetics were analyzed according to preapheresis bendamustine exposure. Additional studies on the impact of the washout period and bendamustine dose were performed. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses were carried out for all efficacy comparisons between bendamustine-exposed and bendamustine-naïve patients., Results: The study included 439 patients with R/R LBCL infused with CD19-targeted commercial CAR T cells, of whom 80 had received bendamustine before apheresis. Exposed patients had significantly lower CD3 + cells and platelets at apheresis. These patients had a lower overall response rate (ORR, 53% v 72%; P < .01), a shorter progression-free survival (PFS, 3.1 v 6.2 months; P = .04), and overall survival (OS, 10.3 v 23.5 months; P = .01) in comparison with the bendamustine-naïve group. Following adjustment methods for baseline variables, these differences were mitigated. Focusing on the impact of bendamustine washout before apheresis, those with recent (<9 months) exposure (N = 42) displayed a lower ORR (40% v 72%; P < .01), shorter PFS (1.3 v 6.2 months; P < .01), and OS (4.6 v 23.5 months; P < .01) in comparison with bendamustine-naïve patients. These differences remained significant after IPTW and PSM analysis. Conversely, the cumulative dose of bendamustine before apheresis did not affect CAR-T efficacy outcomes., Conclusion: Recent bendamustine exposure before apheresis was associated with negative treatment outcomes after CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy and should be therefore avoided in CAR T-cell candidates.

Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) has transformed the treatment landscape for cancer and infectious disease through the investigational use of chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CAR-Ts), tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and viral-specific T-cells (VSTs). Whilst these represent breakthrough treatments, there are subsets of patients who fail to respond to autologous ACT products. This is frequently due to impaired patient T-cell function or "fitness" as a consequence of prior treatments and age, and can be exacerbated by complex manufacturing protocols. Further, the manufacture of autologous, patient-specific products is time-consuming, expensive and non-standardised. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) as an allogeneic alternative to patient-specific products can potentially overcome the issues outlined above. iPSC technology provides an unlimited source of rejuvenated iPSC-derived T-cells (T-iPSCs) or natural killer (NK) cells (NK-iPSCs), and in the context of the growing field of allogeneic ACT, iPSCs have enormous potential as a platform for generating off-the-shelf, standardised, "fit" therapeutics for patients. In this review, we evaluate current and future applications of iPSC technology in the CAR-T/NK, TIL and VST space. We discuss current and next-generation iPSC manufacturing protocols, and report on current iPSC-based adoptive therapy clinical trials to elucidate the potential of this technology as the future of ACT.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) remains the sole curative option for myelofibrosis (MF). Relapse remains a significant problem, however, occurring in up to 20% to 30% of cases. Donor lymphocyte infusion (DLI) represents a potentially effective strategy for relapse prevention and management, but the optimal timing based on measurable residual disease/chimerism analyses and the choice of regimen remain undetermined. We performed a retrospective real-world analysis of a multicenter cohort of MF allo-HCT recipients from 8 European transplantation centers who received DLI between 2005 and 2022. Response was assessed using International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment-defined response criteria, and survival endpoints were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test. The study included 28 patients with a median age of 58 years and a Karnofsky Performance Status of >80. The majority of patients had Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System-plus intermediate-2 or high-risk disease at the time of allo-HCT. In vivo T cell depletion was used in 20 patients (71.2%), with 19 of the 20 receiving antithymocyte globulin. The indication for DLI was either "preemptive" (n = 15), due to a decrease in recipient chimerism (n = 13) or molecular relapse (n = 2), or "therapeutic" (n = 13) for clinician-defined hematologic/clinical relapse. No patient received DLI prophylactically. The median time of DLI administration was 23.4 months post allo-HCT. Of the 16 patients receiving multiple DLIs, 12 were part of a planned escalating dose regimen. The median follow-up from the time of first DLI was 55.4 months. The responses to DLI were complete response in 9 patients, partial response in 1 patient, and clinical improvement in 6 patients. Chimerism levels improved in 16 patients, and stable disease was reported in 5 patients. No response or progression was reported in 7 patients. DLI-induced acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) was reported in 11 patients (39%), with grade III-IV aGVHD in 7 (25%). The median overall survival from the time of first DLI was 62.6 months, and the cumulative incidence of relapse/progression after first DLI was 30.8% at 6 months. This study highlights that good response rates can be achieved with DLI even after frank relapse in some patients in a cohort in which other treatment options are very limited. More prospective studies are warranted to identify the optimal DLI regimen and timing to improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2023 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Base editing is a revolutionary gene-editing technique enabling the introduction of point mutations into the genome without generating detrimental DNA double-stranded breaks. Base-editing enzymes are commonly delivered in the form of modified linear messenger RNA (mRNA) that is costly to produce. Here, we address this problem by developing a simple protocol for manufacturing base-edited cells using circular RNA (circRNA), which is less expensive to synthesize. Compared with linear mRNA, higher editing efficiencies were achieved with circRNA, enabling an 8-fold reduction in the amount of RNA required. We used this protocol to manufacture a clinical dose (1 × 10 8 cells) of base-edited chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells lacking expression of the inhibitory receptor, PD-1. Editing efficiencies of up to 86% were obtained using 0.25 μg circRNA/1 × 10 6 cells. Increased editing efficiencies with circRNA were attributed to more efficient translation. These results suggest that circRNA, which is less expensive to produce than linear mRNA, is a viable option for reducing the cost of manufacturing base-edited cells at scale., Competing Interests: R.W., F.P., K.L., L.M., C.A., A.W., G.S.T, K.L., J.S., and M.P. are employees of Autolus Therapeutics plc and hold equity shares or options in the company. M.P. receives royalty share from patents licensed to Autolus Therapeutics plc., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Hematological toxicity is the most common adverse event after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Cytopenias can be profound and long-lasting and can predispose for severe infectious complications. In a recent worldwide survey, we demonstrated that there remains considerable heterogeneity in regard to current practice patterns. Here, we sought to build consensus on the grading and management of immune effector cell-associated hematotoxicity (ICAHT) after CAR T-cell therapy. For this purpose, a joint effort between the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the European Hematology Association (EHA) involved an international panel of 36 CAR T-cell experts who met in a series of virtual conferences, culminating in a 2-day meeting in Lille, France. On the basis of these deliberations, best practice recommendations were developed. For the grading of ICAHT, a classification system based on depth and duration of neutropenia was developed for early (day 0-30) and late (after day +30) cytopenia. Detailed recommendations on risk factors, available preinfusion scoring systems (eg, CAR-HEMATOTOX score), and diagnostic workup are provided. A further section focuses on identifying hemophagocytosis in the context of severe hematotoxicity. Finally, we review current evidence and provide consensus recommendations for the management of ICAHT, including growth factor support, anti-infectious prophylaxis, transfusions, autologous hematopoietic stem cell boost, and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. In conclusion, we propose ICAHT as a novel toxicity category after immune effector cell therapy, provide a framework for its grading, review literature on risk factors, and outline expert recommendations for the diagnostic workup and short- and long-term management., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology.)