Search

Simple Summary CAR T-cell therapies have undoubtedly revolutionized the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These therapies represent a valuable new treatment option, yielding impressive complete remission rates and improving survival. The aim of this article is to give an overview of emerging real-world evidence since data from every-day clinical practice are still scarce. We report effectiveness and safety data on 30 patients treated at our Institution. Treatment in this setting with CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapies for relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma showed a manageable safety profile and high objective response rate, confirming the encouraging results of the pivotal clinical trials. Abstract Large B-cell lymphomas (LBCL) are the most common types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Although outcomes have improved thanks to the introduction of rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy, certain LBCL still represents a challenge because of initial resistance to therapy or recurrent relapses. Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are second-generation autologous CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies approved for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) LBCL, based on the results of phase II pivotal single-arm trials ZUMA-1 (for axi-cel) and JULIET (for tisa-cel). Here, we report patients outcomes with axi-cel and tisa-cel in the standard of care (SoC) setting for R/R LBCL, treated at our Institution. Data were collected from patients who underwent leukapheresis between August 2019 and February 2021. Toxicities were graded and managed according to the institution’s guidelines. Responses were assessed as per Lugano 2014 classification. Of the 30 patients who underwent leukapheresis, 18 (60%) received axi-cel, while 12 (40%) tisa-cel. Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity occurred in 10% and 16% patients, respectively. Best objective and complete response rates were 73.3% and 40%, respectively. Treatment in SoC setting with CD19 CAR T-cell therapies for R/R LBCL showed a manageable safety profile and high objective response rate.

Single-agent monoclonal antibodies targeting the immune checkpoint PD1 (programmed death 1) are an efficient and safe therapeutic option in patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma. However, many patients progress or lose response to anti-PD1. Recent studies have highlighted the role of the gut microbiota (GM) in influencing the response to chemo-immunotherapeutic agents. Here we hypothesize that the GM dynamics in B-cell lymphoma patients during anti-PD1 therapy correlate with treatment response. From December 2017 to December 2020, we enrolled 17 patients (12 with classical Hodgkin lymphoma [cHL] and 5 with primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma [PMBCL]) treated with anti-PD1 due to relapsed/refractory disease. Feces were collected at baseline, before each therapy cycle, at response assessment (both during therapeutic course and at the end of treatment) and for grade >2 adverse events. All the samples were profiled through Illumina sequencing. At each time point, patients compiled a 7-day weighted food intake record that was analyzed by MètaDieta (METEDA). We report the results of the first 6 patients enrolled, all affected by cHL. Of the six patients, five were females. The median age was 31 years (range 26-71). Five patients were refractory to the last therapy, with a median of previous treatments of 3 (range 3-5). All the six patients discontinued the chemo-immunotherapy. In particular, three patients were discontinued due to disease progression, two achieved a complete remission and consolidated the response with autologous stem cell transplantation and the last one discontinued due to a grade 3 adverse event, despite partial remission. The median number of anti-PD1 cycles was 15 (range 7-18). The baseline GM was found to be distinct from that of age-/gender-matched healthy controls (HC). In particular, the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index showed significant segregation between the two study groups (p value < 1×10 -4, PERMANOVA), as well as greater dispersion in the patient group. Regarding intra-individual diversity, although no significant differences were found with both metrics used (Inverse Simpson and Shannon index, Wilcoxon test), a slight decrease in patients compared to HC was observed. By analyzing the genus-level composition, compared to HC, the microbial ecosystem of patients was enriched in the pathobiont Collinsella while depleted of health-associated taxa, e.g., Faecalibacterium, Ruminococcus, Coprococcus and Roseburia (p value < 0.05; Figure 1A). When focusing the analysis on the GM trajectories along the checkpoint inhibitor treatment (Figure 1B), we found that intra-individual variability underwent cyclical fluctuations in responders, while values remained nearly constant in non-responders. Furthermore, significant differences were found between the GM structures of the two patient groups (responders vs non-responders), both at the level of dominant (weighted UniFrac, p value = 0.02) and subdominant (unweighted UniFrac, p value = 0.01) microbial components. The analysis of the questionnaires on eating habits filled in by the patients at each time point made it possible to estimate the daily consumption of the main macronutrients. Despite comparable energy intake and protein and fiber consumption, a greater lipid consumption and lower carbohydrate consumption were observed in responders than in non-responders. In conclusion, the GM of patients affected by B-cell Hodgkin lymphoma showed some peculiarities compared to the HC microbiota, with a depletion of health-promoting microbial components, including producers of short-chain fatty acids (i.e., Faecalibacterium, Roseburia, Coprococcus and Ruminococcus). During therapy, a peculiar trend of GM response emerged in patients with different therapeutic outcomes. Beyond the different structures in terms of dominant and subdominant microbial components, responders showed greater biodiversity plasticity than non-responders. This difference possibly suggests a lower resilience of the disease state. Furthermore, the responder group showed a greater consumption of lipids and a lower intake of carbohydrates during therapy, opening interesting perspectives towards the development of integrated intervention strategies in this peculiar setting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Zinzani: GILEAD: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; TAKEDA: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Other, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Other, Speakers Bureau; SANDOZ: Other: Advisory board; ADC Therap.: Other; JANSSEN-CILAG: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; CELLTRION: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; EUSAPHARMA: Consultancy, Other, Speakers Bureau; KYOWA KIRIN: Other, Speakers Bureau; NOVARTIS: Consultancy, Other, Speakers Bureau; SERVIER: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; ROCHE: Other, Speakers Bureau; VERASTEM: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau.

Introduction Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is a second generation, CD19-targeted Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The pivotal phase 2 trial ZUMA-2 enrolled 74 patients and infused 68, with an overall response rate (ORR) of 85% (complete response rate, 59%) among all patients who underwent apheresis (intention-to-treat, ITT). Grade 3 or higher cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events occurred in 15% and 31% of patients, respectively. However, very little is known regarding its safety and efficacy in the real-world setting. In our study, we report clinical outcomes of patients with R/R MCL treated with commercial brexu-cel. Methods Data were collected retrospectively from all consecutive patients with R/R MCL who underwent apheresis for brexu-cel at 7 European sites, in 3 different countries, from start of the Compassionate Use Program in Europe (February 2020) until June 2021. Evaluable patients included those who received a CAR-T infusion and had at least 1 month of follow-up. Adverse events after infusion were graded according to the ASTCT consensus and efficacy outcomes were assessed according to Lugano criteria. Efficacy outcomes were calculated in the patients who received a CAR T-cell infusion and in all patients who underwent apheresis for brexu-cel (ITT). Results During the study period 28 patients with R/R MCL underwent apheresis for brexu-cel. At data cutoff, 19 (68%) patients had received a CAR T-cell infusion whereas 9 (32%) had not due to progressive disease (n=4), pending manufacturing process (n=4) or achieving a complete response with bridging (n=1). Baseline characteristics of the whole cohort and the infused patients are summarized in Table 1. Among infused patients, median age was 67 years (range 51-78) and 89% were male. Most of the patients had a high-risk simplified Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score (63%), an advanced stage (84%) and 32% had received a prior autologous stem cell transplant. Median follow-up after CAR T-cell infusion was 5 months (range 1-10). Fifteen patients (79%) received bridging therapy after apheresis, including ibrutinib in 8/15 (53%) patients, immunochemotherapy in 7/15 (47%) and radiotherapy in 6/15 (40%). Half the patients (53%) had progressive disease as best response to bridging; 4 (27%) patients had stable disease, 2 (13%) partial response and 1 (7%) achieved a complete response. Median time from apheresis to brexu-cel delivery was 30 days (range 22-48) and median time from apheresis to infusion was 42 days (range 28-77). Among the infused patients, 17 (89%) and 12 (63%) developed any grade of CRS and neurotoxicity, respectively. Grade >2 CRS and neurotoxicity events occurred in 1 (5%) and 5 (26%) patients, respectively. Tocilizumab was administered to 16 (84%) patients and steroids to 12 (63%) patients. Two (11%) patients required admission to the Intensive Care Unit for grade 4 neurotoxicity and septic shock, respectively. At data cutoff, all infused patients were alive except for 1 patient who died due to progressive disease. Other adverse events are summarized in table 2. Best response achieved among the infused patients included complete remission in 13 (68%) patients and partial remission in 4 (21%) patients, with an ORR of 89%. Stable disease and progressive disease were the best response in 1 (5%) patient each. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for infused patients were not reached with the current follow-up (Figure 1); estimated 6-month OS was 91% (95%CI 50.8-98.6) and 6-month PFS was 83% (95%CI 55.4-94.2). Three (16%) patients progressed at days 14, 33 and 90 post-infusion. In the univariate analysis, the percentage of patients with complete response was consistent across key subgroups with high-risk features (including blastoid morphology and TP53 mutation). Response rate and survival analysis by ITT will be presented at the meeting when all products still undergoing manufacturing are complete. Conclusion This multicenter, international study confirms that treatment with brexu-cel in patients with R/R MCL in the real-world setting has very promising efficacy, including in high-risk patients. The early safety profile was manageable and similar to the pivotal trial. Longer follow-up is needed to better assess long-term efficacy and ITT analysis. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Iacoboni: BMS/Celgene, Gilead, Novartis, Janssen, Roche: Honoraria. Chiappella: Takeda: Other: advisory board; Clinigen: Other: lecture fee, advisory board; Novartis: Other: lecture fee; Gilead Sciences: Other: lecture fee, advisory board; Janssen: Other: lecture fee, advisory board; Roche: Other: lecture fee, advisory board; Servier: Other: lecture fee; Celgene Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: lecture fee, advisory board; Astrazeneca: Other: lecture fee; Incyte: Other: lecture fee. Corral: Gileqd: Honoraria; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Bastos-Oreiro: BMS-Celgene: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kite: Speakers Bureau. Schmidt: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses. Carpio: Regeneron, TAKEDA, Celgene, Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travels and accommodation. Reguera: Janssen, Kite/Gilead, Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS-Celgene, Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kwon: Gilead: Honoraria. Martín García-Sancho: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zinzani: Beigene: Other, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; TAKEDA: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; ROCHE: Other, Speakers Bureau; EUSAPHARMA: Consultancy, Other, Speakers Bureau; SANDOZ: Other: Advisory board; SERVIER: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; JANSSEN-CILAG: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; GILEAD: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; CELLTRION: Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau; KYOWA KIRIN: Other, Speakers Bureau; NOVARTIS: Consultancy, Other, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therap.: Other; Incyte: Other, Speakers Bureau; VERASTEM: Consultancy, Other: Advisory board, Speakers Bureau. Subklewe: Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Klinikum der Universität München: Current Employment; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Barba: Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria.