Search

This global phase 3 study compared lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) with a standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy for primary refractory or early relapsed (≤12 months) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Adults eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT; N = 184) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to liso-cel (100 × 106 chimeric antigen receptor-positive T cells) or SOC (3 cycles of platinum-based immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT in responders). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). In this primary analysis with a 17.5-month median follow-up, median EFS was not reached (NR) for liso-cel vs 2.4 months for SOC. Complete response (CR) rate was 74% for liso-cel vs 43% for SOC (P < .0001) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was NR for liso-cel vs 6.2 months for SOC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.400; P < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was NR for liso-cel vs 29.9 months for SOC (HR = 0.724; P = .0987). When adjusted for crossover from SOC to liso-cel, 18-month OS rates were 73% for liso-cel and 54% for SOC (HR = 0.415). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events occurred in 1% and 4% of patients in the liso-cel arm, respectively (no grade 4 or 5 events). These data show significant improvements in EFS, CR rate, and PFS for liso-cel compared with SOC and support liso-cel as a preferred second-line treatment compared with SOC in patients with primary refractory or early relapsed LBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03575351., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells have evolved as a new standard-of-care (SOC) treatment in patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Here, we report the first German real-world data on SOC CAR T-cell therapies with the aim to explore risk factors associated with outcomes. Patients who received SOC axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) for LBCL and were registered with the German Registry for Stem Cell Transplantation (DRST) were eligible. The main outcomes analyzed were toxicities, response, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS). We report 356 patients who received axi-cel (n = 173) or tisa-cel (n = 183) between November 2018 and April 2021 at 21 German centers. Whereas the axi-cel and tisa-cel cohorts were comparable for age, sex, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), international prognostic index (IPI), and pretreatment, the tisa-cel group comprised significantly more patients with poor performance status, ineligibility for ZUMA-1, and the need for bridging, respectively. With a median follow-up of 11 months, Kaplan-Meier estimates of OS, PFS, and nonrelapse mortality (NRM) 12 months after dosing were 52%, 30%, and 6%, respectively. While NRM was largely driven by infections subsequent to prolonged neutropenia and/or severe neurotoxicity and significantly higher with axi-cel, significant risk factors for PFS on the multivariate analysis included bridging failure, elevated LDH, age, and tisa-cel use. In conclusion, this study suggests that important outcome determinants of CD19-directed CAR T-cell treatment of LBCL in the real-world setting are bridging success, CAR-T product selection, LDH, and the absence of prolonged neutropenia and/or severe neurotoxicity. These findings may have implications for designing risk-adapted CAR T-cell therapy strategies., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) primary refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line therapy are at high risk for poor outcomes with current standard of care, platinum-based salvage immunochemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an autologous, CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has previously demonstrated efficacy and manageable safety in third-line or later LBCL. In this Article, we report a prespecified interim analysis of liso-cel versus standard of care as second-line treatment for primary refractory or early relapsed (within 12 months after response to initial therapy) LBCL., Methods: TRANSFORM is a global, phase 3 study, conducted in 47 sites in the USA, Europe, and Japan, comparing liso-cel with standard of care as second-line therapy in patients with primary refractory or early (≤12 months) relapsed LBCL. Adults aged 18-75 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or less, adequate organ function, PET-positive disease per Lugano 2014 criteria, and candidates for autologous HSCT were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of interactive response technology, to liso-cel (100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells intravenously) or standard of care. Standard of care consisted of three cycles of salvage immunochemotherapy delivered intravenously-R-DHAP (rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, two infusions of cytarabine 2000 mg/m 2 on day 2, and cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 on day 1), R-ICE (rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 1, ifosfamide 5000 mg/m 2 on day 2, etoposide 100 mg/m 2 on days 1-3, and carboplatin area under the curve 5 [maximum dose of 800 mg] on day 2), or R-GDP (rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 on day 1)-followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous HSCT in responders. Primary endpoint was event-free survival, with response assessments by an independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria. Efficacy was assessed per intention-to-treat (ie, all randomly assigned patients) and safety in patients who received any treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03575351, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Oct 23, 2018, and Dec 8, 2020, 232 patients were screened and 184 were assigned to the liso-cel (n=92) or standard of care (n=92) groups. At the data cutoff for this interim analysis, March 8, 2021, the median follow-up was 6·2 months (IQR 4·4-11·5). Median event-free survival was significantly improved in the liso-cel group (10·1 months [95% CI 6·1-not reached]) compared with the standard-of-care group (2·3 months [2·2-4·3]; stratified hazard ratio 0·35; 95% CI 0·23-0·53; stratified Cox proportional hazards model one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (74 [80%] of 92 patients in the liso-cel group vs 46 [51%] of 91 patients in the standard-of-care group), anaemia (45 [49%] vs 45 [49%]), thrombocytopenia (45 [49%] vs 58 [64%]), and prolonged cytopenia (40 [43%] vs three [3%]). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events, which are associated with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in one (1%) and four (4%) of 92 patients in the liso-cel group, respectively (no grade 4 or 5 events). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 44 (48%) patients in the liso-cel group and 44 (48%) in the standard-of-care group. No new liso-cel safety concerns were identified in the second-line setting. There were no treatment-related deaths in the liso-cel group and one treatment-related death due to sepsis in the standard-of-care group., Interpretation: These results support liso-cel as a new second-line treatment recommendation in patients with early relapsed or refractory LBCL., Funding: Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MK is a consultant for ADC Therapeutics, Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) company, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, and BeiGene, outside of the submitted work; reports speakers bureau fees for Seagen outside of the submitted work; and reports research funding from TG Therapeutics, Genentech, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work. JA reports honoraria from Juno Therapeutics and BMS, outside of the submitted work. BG is a consultant for BMS, Roche, Kite, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; reports research funding from Roche and Riemser, outside of the submitted work; reports speakers bureau from Roche outside of the submitted work; and is a current employee of Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch. VB reports membership on Board of Directors or advisory committees for Karyopharm, FATE, and Gamida Cell, outside of the submitted work; and research funding from Incyte, FATE, and Gamida Cell, outside of the submitted work. SI reports divested equity in the past 24 months from Karyopharm Therapeutics outside of the submitted work. SM reports speakers bureaus for Novartis, DNA Prime, and Celgene–BMS, outside of the submitted work; travel support and expert panel from Gilead Kite, outside of the submitted work; and is on the data safety monitoring board for Miltenyi Biotec and Immunicum, outside of the submitted work. PM is a consultant for BMS and received research funding from AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. FH-I reports advisory boards from Amgen, Kite, Pharmacyclics, BMS, Celgene, Incyte, Abbvie, Gilead, and Epizyme, outside of the submitted work. KI reports honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fuji Film Toyama Chemical, Genmab, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Symbio, Takeda, Chugai, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Allergan Japan, and AbbVie outside of the submitted work; and research funding from Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genmab, Incyte, Huya Biosciences, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Solasia, Takeda, Yakult, Chugai, Celgene, BeiGene, Bayer, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. FM is a member on Board of Directors or advisory committees for AstraZeneca, Novartis, Celgene, Incyte, Epizyme, BMS, F Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, Gilead, and Genmab, outside of the submitted work; is a consultant for Genentech, Novartis, Epizyme, BMS, Servier, F Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, and Gilead, outside of the submitted work; and reports honoraria from Janssen, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Chugai; and reports speakers bureau from F Hoffmann-La Roche outside of the submitted work. ML is a consultant for Karyopharm Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Legend, Verastem, Janssen, Myeloid Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Novartis, Spectrum, Celgene, a BMS company, AbbVie, Acrotech, Beigene, ADC Therapeutics, TG Therapeutics, MorphoSys, Kite, a Gilead company, and Kyowa Kirin, outside of the submitted work. DGM reports honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, A2 Biotherapeutics, BMS, Umoja, Janssen, Legend Biotech, Genentech, Novartis, MorphoSys, Navan Technologies, Kite Pharma, and Juno Therapeutics, outside of the submitted work; rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/BMS from Celgene, BMS, and Juno Therapeutics, outside of the submitted work; research funding paid to his institution from Celgene, Juno Therapeutics, and Kite Pharma, outside of the submitted work; stock options from A2 Biotherapeutics and Navan Technologies, outside the submitted work; and research funding from Celgene and Juno Therapeutics, outside of the submitted work. AC, AP, and SM are current employees of Celgene, a BMS company; and current equity holders in BMS. KO and LS are current employees of BMS; and current equity holders in BMS. TM was an employee of BMS at the time this research was conducted; and is a current equity holder in BMS. JSA is a consultant for Kymera, Genentech, Incyte Corporation, BeiGene, AstraZeneca, MorphoSys, Bluebird Bio, Genmab, EMD Serono, BMS, C4 Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, AbbVie, Allogene Therapeutics, Kite Pharma, and Novartis, outside of the submitted work; and received research funding from BMS and Seagen, outside of the submitted work. SRS and PBJ declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

First-line therapy for younger patients with peripheral T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (T-NHL) consists of 6 courses of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) with or without etoposide (CHOEP), consolidated by high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT). We hypothesized that allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) could improve outcomes. 104 patients with peripheral T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma, except ALK+ anaplastic large cell lymphoma, 18 to 60 years, all stages, and all age adjusted International Prognostic Index scores, except 0 and stage I, were randomized to 4 cycles of CHOEP and 1 cycle of dexamethasone, cytosine-arabinoside, and platinum (DHAP) followed by high-dose therapy and auto-SCT or myeloablative conditioning and allo-SCT. The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS) at 3 years. After a median follow-up of 42 months, the 3-year EFS after allo-SCT was 43%, as compared with 38% after auto-SCT. Overall survival at 3 years was 57% vs 70% after allo- or auto-SCT, without significant differences between treatment arms. None of the 21 responding patients proceeding to allo-SCT relapsed, as opposed to 13 of 36 patients (36%) proceeding to auto-SCT. Eight of 26 patients (31%) and none of 41 patients died of transplant-related toxicity after allo- and auto-SCT, respectively. The strong graft-versus-lymphoma effect after allo-SCT was counterbalanced by transplant-related mortality. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00984412., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: Six cycles of R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) are the standard treatment for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In the FLYER trial, we assessed whether four cycles of CHOP plus six applications of rituximab are non-inferior to six cycles of R-CHOP in a population of patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with favourable prognosis., Methods: This two-arm, open-label, international, multicentre, prospective, randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial was done at 138 clinical sites in Denmark, Israel, Italy, Norway, and Germany. We enrolled patients aged 18-60 years, with stage I-II disease, normal serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, ECOG performance status 0-1, and without bulky disease (maximal tumour diameter <7·5 cm). Randomisation was computer-based and done centrally in a 1:1 ratio using the Pocock minimisation algorithm after stratification for centres, stage (I vs II), and extralymphatic sites (no vs yes). Patients were assigned to receive either six cycles of R-CHOP or four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab. CHOP comprised cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m 2 ), doxorubicin (50 mg/m 2 ), and vincristine (1·4 mg/m 2 , with a maximum total dose of 2 mg), all administered intravenously on day 1, plus oral prednisone or prednisolone at the discretion of the investigator (100 mg) administered on days 1-5. Rituximab was given at a dose of 375 mg/m 2 of body surface area. Cycles were repeated every 21 days. No radiotherapy was planned except for testicular lymphoma treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after 3 years. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of assigned treatment. A non-inferiority margin of -5·5% was chosen. The trial, which is completed, was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00278421., Findings: Between Dec 2, 2005, and Oct 7, 2016, 592 patients were enrolled, of whom 295 patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of R-CHOP and 297 were assigned to receive four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab. Four patients in the four-cycles group withdrew informed consent before the start of treatment, so 588 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. After a median follow-up of 66 months (IQR 42-100), 3-year progression-free survival of patients who had four cycles of R-CHOP plus two doses of rituximab was 96% (95% CI 94-99), which was 3% better (lower limit of the one-sided 95% CI for the difference was 0%) than six cycles of R-CHOP, demonstrating the non-inferiority of the four-cycles regimen. 294 haematological and 1036 non-haematological adverse events were documented in the four-cycles group compared with 426 haematological and 1280 non-haematological adverse events in the six-cycles group. Two patients, both in the six-cycles group, died during study therapy., Interpretation: In young patients with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma and favourable prognosis, four cycles of R-CHOP is non-inferior to six cycles of R-CHOP, with relevant reduction of toxic effects. Thus, chemotherapy can be reduced without compromising outcomes in this population., Funding: Deutsche Krebshilfe., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Major histocompatibility complex class I polypeptide-related sequence A (MICA) is a highly polymorphic ligand of the activating NKG2D receptor on natural killer (NK) cells, γδ-T cells, and NKT cells. MICA incompatibilities have been associated with an increased graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) incidence, and the MICA-129 (met/val) dimorphism has been shown to influence NKG2D signaling in unrelated hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (uHSCT). We investigated the effect of MICA matching on survival after uHSCT. We sequenced 2172 patients and their respective donors for MICA. All patients and donors were high-resolution HLA-typed and matched for 10/10 (n = 1379), 9/10 (n = 636), or 8/10 (n = 157) HLA alleles. Within each HLA match group, cases matched and mismatched for MICA and MICA-129 were analyzed for the end points overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse-incidence (RI), and GVHD. Mismatches at the MICA locus as well as MICA-129 increased with the number of HLA mismatches (MICA mismatched 10/10, 9.2% [n = 127]; 9/10, 22.3% [n = 142]; 8/10, 38.2% [n = 60]; MICA-129 mismatched 10/10, 3.9% [n = 54]; 9/10, 10.2% [n = 65]; 8/10, 17.2% [n = 27]). Adverse OS was observed in the 10/10 match group if MICA-129 was mismatched (10/10, hazard ratio [HR], 1.77; confidence interval [CI], 1.22-2.57; P = .003). MICA-129 mismatches correlated with a significantly worse outcome for DFS in the 10/10 HLA match group (HR, 1.77; CI, 1.26-2.50; P = .001). Higher rates of aGVHD were seen in MICA-129 mismatched cases. Our results indicate that MICA-129 matching is relevant in uHSCT. Prospective typing of patients and donors in unrelated donor search may identify mismatches for MICA-129, and compatible donor selection may improve outcome for this small but high-risk subgroup., (© 2016 by The American Society of Hematology.)

To define the role of radiotherapy and intrathecal prophylaxis in extralymphatic craniofacial involvement (ECFI) of aggressive B-cell lymphoma, we analyzed 11 consecutive German High-Grade Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group trials. ECFI occurred in 290/4155 (7.0%) patients (orbita, 31; paranasal sinuses, 93; main nasal cavity, 38; tongue, 27; remaining oral cavity, 99; salivary glands, 54). In a multivariable analysis adjusted for International Prognostic Index rituximab improved event-free and overall survival both in patients with and without ECFI. Three-year event-free (79% vs 79%; P = .842) and overall survival (86% vs 88%; P = .351) rates were similar in 145 patients receiving and 57 not receiving radiotherapy. Without rituximab, the 2-year cumulative rate of central nervous system (CNS) disease was increased in 205 ECFI patients compared with 2586 non-ECFI patients (4.2% vs 2.8%; P = .038), whereas this was not observed with rituximab (1.6% in 83 ECFI vs 3.4% in 1252 non-ECFI patients; P = .682). In 88 ECFI patients who received intrathecal prophylaxis with methotrexate, the 2-year rate of CNS disease was 4.2% compared with 2.3% in 191 patients who did not (P = .981). In conclusion, rituximab eliminates the increased risk for CNS disease in patients with ECFI. This retrospective analysis does not support intrathecal prophylaxis or radiotherapy to ECFI patients in complete remission/unconfirmed complete remission. These findings should be confirmed in a prospective study., (© 2014 by The American Society of Hematology.)

To validate current donor selection strategies based on previous international studies, we retrospectively analyzed 2646 transplantations performed for hematologic malignancies in 28 German transplant centers. Donors and recipients were high resolution typed for HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1. The highest mortality in overall survival analysis was seen for HLA-A, -B, and DRB1 mismatches. HLA-DQB1 mismatched cases showed a trend toward higher mortality, mostly due to HLA-DQB1 antigen disparities. HLA incompatibilities at >1 locus showed additive detrimental effects. HLA mismatching had no significant effect on relapse incidence and primary graft failure. Graft source had no impact on survival end points, neither in univariate nor in multivariate analysis. Higher patient age, advanced disease, transplantations before 2004, patient C2C2 killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptor (KIR)-ligand phenotype, and unavailability of a national donor adversely influenced outcomes in multivariate analysis. Our study confirms the association of HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1 incompatibilities with adverse outcome in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The relevance of HLA-DQB1 disparities in single mismatched transplantations remains unclear. Similar hazard ratios for allele and antigen mismatches (possibly with an exception for HLA-DQB1) highlight the importance of allele level typing and matching in HSCT. The number of incompatibilities and their type significantly impact survival.

Feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a 4-course high-dose chemotherapy (HDT) protocol including autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT) after courses 2, 3, and 4 was investigated in 110 patients, aged 18 to 60 years, with primary diagnosis of aggressive NHL (aNHL), and lactic dehydrogenase (LDH) levels above normal. At dose level 1 (DL1), course 1 consisted of cyclophosphamide 1500 mg/m2, doxorubicin (Adriamycin) 70 mg/m2, vincristine 2 mg, etoposide 450 mg/m2, and prednisone 500 mg. With courses 2 and 3 cyclophosphamide and etoposide were escalated to 4500 mg/m2 and 600 mg/m2, respectively. With course 4 cyclophosphamide and etoposide were given at 6000 mg/m2 and 1000 mg/m2, respectively. At DL2 etoposide was further increased to 600, 960, 960, and 1480 mg/m2 with courses 1 to 4, respectively. Therapy as per protocol was completed by 81.8% of patients. Overall survival at 5 years was 67.2%, freedom from treatment failure (FFTF) was 62.1%, and treatment-related mortality was 4.5%. There was a trend to better FFTF at DL2 compared to DL1 (66.9% versus 54.2%). Repetitive HDT with escalated CHOP plus etoposide is feasible and effective treatment of patients with aNHL. DL2 of this therapy is being used in an ongoing phase 3 study.

The combination of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone, given every 3 weeks (CHOP-21) is standard chemotherapy for aggressive lymphomas. To determine whether CHOP given every 2 weeks (CHOP-14) or the addition of etoposide (CHOEP-21, CHOEP-14) can improve results in patients ages 18 to 60 years with good prognosis (normal lactic dehydrogenase [LDH] level), 710 patients were randomized to 6 cycles of CHOP-21, CHOP-14, CHOEP-21 (CHOP plus etoposide 100 mg/m2 days 1-3), or CHOEP-14 in a 2 x 2 factorial study design. Patients in the biweekly regimens received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) starting from day 4. Patients received radiotherapy (36 Gy) to sites of initial bulky disease and extranodal disease. CHOEP achieved better complete remission (87.6% versus 79.4%; P =.003) and 5-year event-free survival rates (69.2% versus 57.6%; P =.004, primary end point) than CHOP, whereas interval reduction improved overall survival (P =.05; P =.044 in the multivariate analysis). Although the CHOEP regimens induced more myelosuppression, all regimens were well tolerated. CHOEP should be the preferred chemotherapy regimen for young patients with good-prognosis (normal LDH level) aggressive lymphoma.