Search

Background: Information about the long-term tolerability of tafasitamab is still limited. Methods: 5 of 92 patients treated within a phase IIa study of single-agent tafasitamab in relapsed or refractory B NHL were followed for up to five years or longer for long-term tolerability. Results: Treatment was very well tolerated in an outpatient setting with no hospitalizations needed and mild and tolerable adverse events that occurred mostly within the first two years of treatment. Conclusions: Given the excellent tolerability and efficacy of tafasitamab this agent can be used to induce remission in relapsed or refractory lymphoma either alone or in combination with chemotherapy.

The treatment and evolution of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL) has undergone important changes in the last years with the emergence of targeted therapies, such as monoclonal antibodies, small molecules, antibody-drug conjugates, and bispecific antibodies. Nevertheless, a significant portion of patients remains refractory or relapsed (R/R) to the new therapeutic modalities, representing thus an unmet medical need. The use of CAR-T cells for the treatment of B-NHL patients has shown to be a promising therapy with impressive results in patients with R/R disease. The expectations are as high as the imminent approval of CAR-T cell therapy in Brazil, which it is expected to impact the prognosis of R/R B-NHL. The aim of this manuscript is to offer a consensus of specialists in the field of onco-hematology and cellular therapy, working in Brazil and United States, in order to discuss and offer recommendations in the present setting of the use of CAR-T cells for patients with B-NHL.

Background Patients (pts) with aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) progressing after anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T (CART) cell therapy have poor prognosis and may benefit from new therapy options through clinical trials. However, in a single center report, only 12% of such pts were treated in trials (Chow et al. Am J Hematol, 2019). Identifying the reasons for this low enrollment is needed to design future studies for this population. Here, we evaluated the eligibility criteria for recent landmark trials for relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell NHL to learn what eligibility barriers are present. Methods Pts with aggressive B-cell NHL who received FDA-approved CART cell therapy at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Arizona, Florida) since 2018 and progressed after CART cell therapy were identified. The potential eligibility for the following key trials was evaluated: a) polatuzumab + bendamustine + rituximab, b) tafasitamab + lenalidomide, c) selinexor and d) loncastuximab. The eligibility for each trial was retrospectively assessed at the time of disease progression after CART cell therapy based on hemoglobin (Hb), absolute neutrophils count (ANC), platelet count (Plt), renal and liver function tests, ECOG performance status (PS), and central nervous system (CNS) involvement. Results Seventy-five pts had disease progression to axicabtagene ciloleucel (N=73, 97%) or tisagenlecleucel (N=2, 3%) and are included in this analysis. Median time to progression after CART was 2.1 months (IQR: 1.0 - 3.1). Thirteen (17%) pts were treated in clinical trials after progression following CART cell therapy, while 46 (61%) were treated off trials, and 16 (22%) pts never received any treatment after progression. At a median follow-up of 13.6 months (IQR: 9.1 - 26.7) from CART progression, the median overall survival (mOS) from CART progression was 5.8 months (95% CI 3.5 - 10.1) and 53 (71%) pts died. Thirty-eight pts (51%) did not meet eligibility criteria for any of the 4 recent landmark trials. Hematologic impairment was the most common barrier to inclusion of these patients in clinical trials: Hb < 9 g/dL n=23 (31%) or Hb < 10 g/dL n=36 (48%), ANC < 1.0 x 10 9/L n=19 (25%) or ANC < 1.5 x 10 9/L n=32 (43%), and Plt < 75 x 10 9/L n=30 (40%) or Plt < 90 x 10 9/L n=34 (45%). Renal (n=11, 15%) or liver dysfunction (n=5, 7%), CNS involvement (n=8, 11%) and ECOG PS > 2 (n=3, 4%) were less common reasons leading to exclusion from trials. Post CART trial ineligible pts had significantly shorter time to progression (median 1.7 months, IQR: 1.0 - 2.6 vs. 3.0 months IQR: 1.9 - 3.4, p < 0.01) and inferior overall response to CART (45% vs 67%, p = 0.06) compared to pts who met trial eligibility post CART. Baseline Hb (median Hb 9.5 g/dL, IQR: 8.5 - 10.5 vs. 10.9 g/dL, IQR: 9.7 - 12.2, p < 0.01) and Plt (median Plt 106 x 10 9/L IQR: 54 - 165 vs. 201 x 10 9/L IQR: 141 - 243, p < 0.01) were also significantly lower in pts ineligible for trials post CART. There were no significant differences between pts eligible or ineligible for trials with regards to age (median 59 vs. 60 years), number of prior therapies (median 3 vs. 3), prior autologous stem cell transplant (41% vs. 37%), bridging therapy (65% vs. 63%), baseline ANC (median 4,1 vs. 3,0 x10 9/L), or high-grade (grade ≥ 2) cytokine release syndrome (19% vs. 21%) or neurotoxicity (32%, vs. 42%), respectively. Survival after CART progression was significantly shorter (mOS 2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.6 - 5.1) for the 38 pts ineligible for trials compared to pts eligible for trials (mOS 10.6 months, 95% CI: 8.9 - NA), (p < 0.01). In the 59 pts who received therapy post CART progression, the mOS of pts treated on (n = 13) or off (n = 46) trials was 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.2 - NA) vs. 6.6 months (4.9 - 10.7), respectively (p = 0.047). Conclusion Approximately half of the pts (51%) with aggressive B-cell NHL progressing after CART cell therapy would have be excluded from landmark clinical trials. The current hematologic exclusion criteria are a major barrier to enrollment in clinical trials, which would exclude many pts who have disease progression within 3 months of CART cell therapy (ie, primary refractory disease), in whom cytopenia as a toxicity from therapy is prevalent. Given the known delayed hematologic recovery after CART cell therapy and the unmet need of pts progressing to CART cell therapy, the hematologic exclusion criteria should be adjusted to increase trial participation of this population, especially of those with primary refractory disease. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Munoz: Gilead/Kite Pharma, Kyowa, Bayer, Pharmacyclics/Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Acrotech/Aurobindo, Beigene, Verastem, AstraZeneca, Celgene/BMS, Genentech/Roche.: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Abbvie, Bayer, Gilead/Kite Pharma, Pfizer, Janssen, Juno/Celgene, BMS, Kyowa, Alexion, Beigene, Fosunkite, Innovent, Seattle Genetics, Debiopharm, Karyopharm, Genmab, ADC Therapeutics, Epizyme, Beigene, Servier: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Physicians' Education Resource: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; OncView: Honoraria; Kyowa: Honoraria. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory Board; Daichii Sankyo Inc: Other: Advisory Board; Kyowa Kirin: Other: Advisory Board; Vividion: Other: Advisory Board; Kymera: Other: Advisory Board; Verastem: Other: Advisory Board. Paludo: Karyopharm: Research Funding. Wang: Genentech: Research Funding; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eli Lilly: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; LOXO Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; InnoCare: Research Funding. Ansell: Bristol Myers Squibb, ADC Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Regeneron, Affimed, AI Therapeutics, Pfizer, Trillium and Takeda: Research Funding. Witzig: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Celgene/BMS, Incyte, Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS, Acerta Pharma, Kura Oncology, Acrotech Biopharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin: Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Sorrento: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding.

The unprecedented technological advances in genetic engineering have resulted in the advent of the very promising chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy. Based on the striking outcomes of clinical trials, the first two commercial CAR-T cell products, tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel, have been approved in both the United States and Europe for the treatment of patients with highly aggressive CD19-positive hematological malignancies. Despite the initial remarkable responses many patients finally relapse, implying the presence of resistance mechanisms. In this review, we describe the limitations and resistance mechanisms to anti-CD19 CAR-T cells and address potential strategies to overcome CAR-T cell barriers.

Background & Aim Background: Tisagenlecleucel (CTL019) is approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) aggressive B-cell lymphomas after second line therapy. Prior to CTL019 release for commercial use in the United States, the final manufactured, patient-specific product must meet specific Lot Release Specifications. CAR T cell products that do not meet predetermined release specifications are considered “out of specification” (OOS). Aim To describe reasons commercial CTL019 products were OOS and examine clinical outcomes with use of OOS CTL019. Methods, Results & Conclusion Methods We are participating in a prospective, managed access protocol to allow administration of OOS CTL019 to patients (pts) with r/r aggressive B-cell lymphomas. Pts were provided product via this managed access program. Consent was obtained from all pts. Clinical response was assessed at 3 months post CTL019 infusion. Results 18 pts were enrolled at our institution. Eleven pts had r/r DLBCL, 5 pts had r/r HGBCL, and 2 pts had r/r tFL. Median age was 65.3 years (range: 41-75 years); 7 pts (39%) were female. Fourteen pts (78%) had advanced stage lymphoma. Median ECOG performance status was 0 (range: 0-2). Median prior therapies was 3 (range: 2-5). Median absolute lymphocyte counts and CD3 counts were 850 / uL (range: 200-1300) and 601 / uL (range: 228-1343), respectively. Median CTL019 dose was 1.4 × 108 CAR-positive viable T cells (range: 0.5 × 108-2.5 × 108). Median product viability was 78.65% (range: 70.8-87.4%). Fifteen of 18 pts (83%) were enrolled due to low viability products (viability 1000 fg/transduced cell (n=1). Of 18 pts enrolled, 15 pts have at least 3 months of follow-up. Median follow-up is 3.5 months. Five pts had CRS grades 1-2 by ASTCT criteria and no pts had neurotoxicity. Of the 5 pts with CRS, one received a low dose of CTL019 (grade 2 CRS), one had higher levels of IFN gamma (grade 1 CRS), and three had low viability (all grade 1 CRS). For all pts infused with OOS products, the 3-month overall response rate (ORR) is 60%, including 7/15 (47%) CR and 2/15 (13%) PR. Conclusions Commercially produced CTL019 products were OOS primarily due to low viability. Three-month overall response rates appear similar to published tisagenlecleucel outcomes for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas.