Ide-cel or Standard Regimens in Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Survival is poor among patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel), a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, previously led to deep, durable responses in patients with heavily pretreated relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this international, open-label, phase 3 trial involving adults with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received two to four regimens previously (including immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and daratumumab) and who had disease refractory to the last regimen, we randomly assigned patients in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ide-cel (dose range, 150×106 to 450×106 CAR-positive T cells) or one of five standard regimens. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Key secondary end points were overall response (partial response or better) and overall survival. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 386 patients underwent randomization: 254 to ide-cel and 132 to a standard regimen. A total of 66% of the patients had triple-class-refractory disease, and 95% had daratumumab-refractory disease. At a median follow-up of 18.6 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.3 months in the ide-cel group, as compared with 4.4 months in the standard-regimen group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.65; P<0.001). A response occurred in 71% of the patients in the ide-cel group and in 42% of those in the standard-regimen group (P<0.001); a complete response occurred in 39% and 5%, respectively. Data on overall survival were immature. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 93% of the patients in the ide-cel group and in 75% of those in the standard-regimen group. Among the 225 patients who received ide-cel, cytokine release syndrome occurred in 88%, with 5% having an event of grade 3 or higher, and investigator-identified neurotoxic effects occurred in 15%, with 3% having an event of grade 3 or higher. CONCLUSIONS: Ide-cel therapy significantly prolonged progression-free survival and improved response as compared with standard regimens in patients with triple-class-exposed relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received two to four regimens previously. The toxicity of ide-cel was consistent with previous reports. (Funded by 2seventy bio and Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company; KarMMa-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03651128.).

Two-year follow-up of lisocabtagene maraleucel in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in TRANSCEND NHL 001.

ABSTRACT: Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) demonstrated significant efficacy with a manageable safety profile as third-line or later treatment for patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) in the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study. Primary end points were adverse events (AEs), dose-limiting toxicities, and objective response rate (ORR) per independent review committee. Key secondary end points were complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). After 2-year follow-up, patients could enroll in a separate study assessing long-term (≤15 years) safety and OS. Liso-cel-treated patients (N = 270) had a median age of 63 years (range, 18-86 years) and a median of 3 prior lines (range, 1-8) of systemic therapy, and 181 of them (67%) had chemotherapy-refractory LBCL. Median follow-up was 19.9 months. In efficacy-evaluable patients (N = 257), the ORR was 73% and CR rate was 53%. The median (95% confidence interval) DOR, PFS, and OS were 23.1 (8.6 to not reached), 6.8 (3.3-12.7), and 27.3 months (16.2-45.6), respectively. Estimated 2-year DOR, PFS, and OS rates were 49.5%, 40.6%, and 50.5%, respectively. In the 90-day treatment-emergent period (N = 270), grade 3 to 4 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events occurred in 2% and 10% of patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥3 AEs in treatment-emergent and posttreatment-emergent periods, respectively, were neutropenia (60% and 7%) and anemia (37% and 6%). Liso-cel demonstrated durable remissions and a manageable safety profile with no new safety signals during the 2-year follow-up in patients with R/R LBCL. These trials were registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02631044 and #NCT03435796.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: primary analysis of the phase 3 TRANSFORM study.

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.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (TRANSCEND CLL 004): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma for whom treatment has failed with both Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor and venetoclax have few treatment options and poor outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) at the recommended phase 2 dose in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. METHODS: We report the primary analysis of TRANSCEND CLL 004, an open-label, single-arm, phase 1-2 study conducted in the USA. Patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma and at least two previous lines of therapy, including a BTK inhibitor, received an intravenous infusion of liso-cel at one of two target dose levels: 50 × 106 (dose level 1) or 100 × 106 (dose level 2, DL2) chimeric antigen receptor-positive T cells. The primary endpoint was complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery), assessed by independent review according to the 2018 International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia criteria, in efficacy-evaluable patients with previous BTK inhibitor progression and venetoclax failure (the primary efficacy analysis set) at DL2 (null hypothesis of ≤5%). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03331198. FINDINGS: Between Jan 2, 2018, and June 16, 2022, 137 enrolled patients underwent leukapheresis at 27 sites in the USA. 117 patients received liso-cel (median age 65 years [IQR 59-70]; 37 [32%] female and 80 [68%] male; 99 [85%] White, five [4%] Black or African American, two [2%] other races, and 11 [9%] unknown race; median of five previous lines of therapy [IQR 3-7]); all 117 participants had received and had treatment failure on a previous BTK inhibitor. A subset of patients had also experienced venetoclax failure (n=70). In the primary efficacy analysis set at DL2 (n=49), the rate of complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) was statistically significant at 18% (n=9; 95% CI 9-32; p=0·0006). In patients treated with liso-cel, grade 3 cytokine release syndrome was reported in ten (9%) of 117 (with no grade 4 or 5 events) and grade 3 neurological events were reported in 21 (18%; one [1%] grade 4, no grade 5 events). Among 51 deaths on the study, 43 occurred after liso-cel infusion, of which five were due to treatment-emergent adverse events (within 90 days of liso-cel infusion). One death was related to liso-cel (macrophage activation syndrome-haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis). INTERPRETATION: A single infusion of liso-cel was shown to induce complete response or remission (including with incomplete marrow recovery) in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma, including patients who had experienced disease progression on a previous BTK inhibitor and venetoclax failure. The safety profile was manageable. FUNDING: Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

HLA informs risk predictions after haploidentical stem cell transplantation with posttransplantation cyclophosphamide.

Hematopoietic cell transplantation from HLA-haploidentical related donors is increasingly used to treat hematologic cancers; however, characteristics of the optimal haploidentical donor have not been established. We studied the role of donor HLA mismatching in graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), disease recurrence, and survival after haploidentical donor transplantation with posttransplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) for 1434 acute leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome patients reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. The impact of mismatching in the graft-versus-host vector for HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1 alleles, the HLA-B leader, and HLA-DPB1 T-cell epitope (TCE) were studied using multivariable regression methods. Outcome was associated with HLA (mis)matches at individual loci rather than the total number of HLA mismatches. HLA-DRB1 mismatches were associated with lower risk of disease recurrence. HLA-DRB1 mismatching with HLA-DQB1 matching correlated with improved disease-free survival. HLA-B leader matching and HLA-DPB1 TCE-nonpermissive mismatching were each associated with improved overall survival. HLA-C matching lowered chronic GVHD risk, and the level of HLA-C expression correlated with transplant-related mortality. Matching status at the HLA-B leader and HLA-DRB1, -DQB1, and -DPB1 predicted disease-free survival, as did patient and donor cytomegalovirus serostatus, patient age, and comorbidity index. A web-based tool was developed to facilitate selection of the best haploidentical-related donor by calculating disease-free survival based on these characteristics. In conclusion, HLA factors influence the success of haploidentical transplantation with PTCy. HLA-DRB1 and -DPB1 mismatching and HLA-C, -B leader, and -DQB1 matching are favorable. Consideration of HLA factors may help to optimize the selection of haploidentical related donors.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

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 × 106 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/m2 on day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, two infusions of cytarabine 2000 mg/m2 on day 2, and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1), R-ICE (rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1, ifosfamide 5000 mg/m2 on day 2, etoposide 100 mg/m2 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/m2 on day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 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.

HLA-haploidentical vs matched unrelated donor transplants with posttransplant cyclophosphamide-based prophylaxis.

Posttransplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has enabled haploidentical (Haplo) transplantation to be performed with results similar to those after matched unrelated donor (MUD) transplantation with traditional prophylaxis. The relative value of transplantation with MUD vs Haplo donors when both groups receive PTCy/calcineurin inhibitor/mycophenolate GVHD prophylaxis is not known. We compared outcomes after 2036 Haplo and 284 MUD transplantations with PTCy GVHD prophylaxis for acute leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome in adults from 2011 through 2018. Cox regression models were built to compare outcomes between donor types. Recipients of myeloablative and reduced-intensity regimens were analyzed separately. Among recipients of reduced-intensity regimens, 2-year graft failure (3% vs 11%), acute grades 2 to 4 GVHD (hazards ratio [HR], 0.70; P = .022), acute grades 3 and 4 GVHD (HR, 0.41; P = .016), and nonrelapse mortality (HR, 0.43; P = .0008) were lower after MUD than with Haplo donor transplantation. Consequently, disease-free (HR, 0.74; P = .008; 55% vs 41%) and overall (HR, 0.65; P = .001; 67% vs 54%) survival were higher with MUD than with Haplo transplants. Among recipients of myeloablative regimens, day-100 platelet recovery (95% vs 88%) was higher and grades 3 and 4 acute (HR, 0.39; P = .07) and chronic GVHD (HR, 0.66; P = .05) were lower after MUD than with Haplo donor transplantation. There were no differences in graft failure, relapse, nonrelapse mortality, and disease-free and overall survival between donor types with myeloablative conditioning regimens. These data extend and confirm the importance of donor-recipient HLA matching for allogeneic transplantation. A MUD is the preferred donor, especially for transplantations with reduced-intensity conditioning regimens.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who were not intended for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (PILOT): an open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after first-line treatment who are not intended for haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) have poor outcomes and limited treatment options. We assessed the antitumour activity and safety of lisocabtagene maraleucel, an autologous, CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product, as second-line treatment in adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma not intended for HSCT. METHODS: PILOT, an open-label, phase 2 trial done at 18 clinical sites in the USA, included adults aged 18 years or older who had relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma and PET-positive disease, had received first-line therapy containing an anthracycline and a CD20-targeted agent, were not intended for HSCT by their physician, and met at least one prespecified transplantation not intended criterion. Patients received lymphodepleting chemotherapy (intravenous fludarabine 30 mg/m2 and intravenous cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 daily for 3 days) followed 2-7 days later by two sequential lisocabtagene maraleucel infusions (equal target doses of CD8+ and CD4+ CAR+ T cells for a total target dose of 100 × 106 CAR+ T cells). The primary endpoint was the overall response rate and was assessed in all patients who received lisocabtagene maraleucel and had confirmed PET-positive disease before lisocabtagene maraleucel administration based on an independent review committee according to the Lugano 2014 criteria. Safety was assessed in all patients who received lisocabtagene maraleucel. Patient follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03483103. FINDINGS: Between July 26, 2018, and Sept 24, 2021 (data cutoff for the primary analysis), 74 patients underwent leukapheresis and 61 received lisocabtagene maraleucel (efficacy and safety sets); median age was 74 years (IQR 70-78), 24 (39%) patients were women versus 37 (61%) men, and 54 (89%) patients were White. 16 (26%) of 61 patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2, 33 (54%) had refractory disease, 13 (21%) relapsed within 1 year of first-line therapy, and 15 (25%) relapsed after 12 months of first-line therapy. Median on-study follow-up was 12·3 months (IQR 6·1-18·0). 49 (80% [95% CI 68-89]; p<0·0001) patients had an overall response. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (29 [48%] patients), leukopenia (13 [21%]), and thrombocytopenia (12 [20%]). Lisocabtagene maraleucel-related serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 13 (21%) patients. There were no treatment-related deaths. Cytokine release syndrome occurred in 23 (38%; grade 3 in one) patients and neurological events in 19 (31%; grade 3 in three) patients, with no grade 4 events or deaths. INTERPRETATION: These results support lisocabtagene maraleucel as a potential second-line treatment in patients with large B-cell lymphoma for whom HSCT is not intended. FUNDING: Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb company.

Inferences for current chronic graft-versus-host-disease free and relapse free survival.

This paper provides the methodologies of a new summary curve that measures the dynamic outcome following allogenic hematopoietic cell transplantation. This new summary curve computes the probabilities that a patient is alive in remission and free of severe-to-moderate chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) over time. The probability is called Current chronic GVHD-free, Relapse-Free Survival (CGRFS). Based on a multistate model depicting the possible states that a patient may experience after transplant, CGRFS can be formulated as a linear combination of five survival functions. This method is known as the model-free approach. In this paper we provide the inferences of the model-free approach, including estimation of CGRFS, precision evaluation and comparison of CGRFS between two independent samples.

Results of a randomized phase 3 study of oral sapacitabine in elderly patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (SEAMLESS).

BACKGROUND: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is fatal in elderly patients who are unfit for standard induction chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the survival benefit of administering sapacitabine, an oral nucleoside analogue, in alternating cycles with decitabine, a low-intensity therapy, to elderly patients with newly diagnosed AML. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, phase 3 study (SEAMLESS) was conducted at 87 sites in 11 countries. Patients aged ≥70 years who were not candidates for or chose not to receive standard induction chemotherapy were randomized 1:1 to arm A (decitabine in alternating cycles with sapacitabine) received 1-hour intravenous infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 8 weeks (first cycle and subsequent odd cycles) and sapacitabine 300 mg twice daily on 3 consecutive days per week for 2 weeks every 8 weeks (second cycle and subsequent even cycles) or to control arm C who received 1-hour infusions of decitabine 20 mg/m2 once daily for 5 consecutive days every 4 weeks. Prior hypomethylating agent therapy for preexisting myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms was an exclusion criterion. Randomization was stratified by antecedent myelodysplastic syndromes or myeloproliferative neoplasms, white blood cell count (<10 × 109 /L and ≥10 × 109 /L), and bone marrow blast percentage (≥50% vs <50%). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were the rates of complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete platelet count recovery, partial remission, hematologic improvement, and stable disease along with the corresponding durations, transfusion requirements, number of hospitalized days, and 1-year survival. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01303796). RESULTS: Between October 2011 and December 2014, 482 patients were enrolled and randomized to receive decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine (study arm, n = 241) or decitabine monotherapy (control arm, n = 241). The median OS was 5.9 months on the study arm versus 5.7 months on the control arm (P = .8902). The CR rate was 16.6% on the study arm and 10.8% on the control arm (P = .1468). In patients with white blood cell counts <10 × 109 /L (n = 321), the median OS was higher on the study arm versus the control arm (8.0 vs 5.8 months; P = .145), as was the CR rate (21.5% vs 8.6%; P = .0017). CONCLUSIONS: The regimen of decitabine administered in alternating cycles with sapacitabine was active but did not significantly improve OS compared with decitabine monotherapy. Subgroup analyses suggest that patients with baseline white blood cell counts <10 × 109 /L might benefit from decitabine alternating with sapacitabine, with an improved CR rate and the convenience of an oral drug. These findings should be prospectively confirmed.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas (TRANSCEND NHL 001): a multicentre seamless design study.

BACKGROUND: Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) is an autologous, CD19-directed, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell product. We aimed to assess the activity and safety of liso-cel in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas. METHODS: We did a seamless design study at 14 cancer centres in the USA. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas. Eligible histological subgroups included diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, high-grade B-cell lymphoma with rearrangements of MYC and either BCL2, BCL6, or both (double-hit or triple-hit lymphoma), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma transformed from any indolent lymphoma, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma grade 3B. Patients were assigned to one of three target dose levels of liso-cel as they were sequentially tested in the trial (50 × 106 CAR+ T cells [one or two doses], 100 × 106 CAR+ T cells, and 150 × 106 CAR+ T cells), which were administered as a sequential infusion of two components (CD8+ and CD4+ CAR+ T cells) at equal target doses. Primary endpoints were adverse events, dose-limiting toxicities, and the objective response rate (assessed per Lugano criteria); endpoints were assessed by an independent review committee in the efficacy-evaluable set (comprising all patients who had confirmed PET-positive disease and received at least one dose of liso-cel). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02631044. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2016, and July 5, 2019, 344 patients underwent leukapheresis for manufacture of CAR+ T cells (liso-cel), of whom 269 patients received at least one dose of liso-cel. Patients had received a median of three (range 1-8) previous lines of systemic treatment, with 260 (97%) patients having had at least two lines. 112 (42%) patients were aged 65 years or older, 181 (67%) had chemotherapy-refractory disease, and seven (3%) had secondary CNS involvement. Median follow-up for overall survival for all 344 patients who had leukapheresis was 18·8 months (95% CI 15·0-19·3). Overall safety and activity of liso-cel did not differ by dose level. The recommended target dose was 100 × 106 CAR+ T cells (50 × 106 CD8+ and 50 × 106 CD4+ CAR+ T cells). Of 256 patients included in the efficacy-evaluable set, an objective response was achieved by 186 (73%, 95% CI 66·8-78·0) patients and a complete response by 136 (53%, 46·8-59·4). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia in 161 (60%) patients, anaemia in 101 (37%), and thrombocytopenia in 72 (27%). Cytokine release syndrome and neurological events occurred in 113 (42%) and 80 (30%) patients, respectively; grade 3 or worse cytokine release syndrome and neurological events occurred in six (2%) and 27 (10%) patients, respectively. Nine (6%) patients had a dose-limiting toxicity, including one patient who died from diffuse alveolar damage following a dose of 50 × 106 CAR+ T cells. INTERPRETATION: Use of liso-cel resulted in a high objective response rate, with a low incidence of grade 3 or worse cytokine release syndrome and neurological events in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas, including those with diverse histological subtypes and high-risk features. Liso-cel is under further evaluation at first relapse in large B-cell lymphomas and as a treatment for other relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies. FUNDING: Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Differences in Graft-versus-Host Disease Characteristics between Haploidentical Transplantation Using Post-Transplantation Cyclophosphamide and Matched Unrelated Donor Transplantation Using Calcineurin Inhibitors.

We assessed differences in presentation and response to therapy in 394 consecutive patients who developed acute or chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after receiving their first allogeneic transplantation (HSCT) from a 10/10 HLA allele-matched unrelated donor (MUD; n = 179) using calcineurin inhibitors or a T cell-replete haploidentical donor (haplo; n = 215) and post-transplantation cyclophosphamide at our center between 2005 and 2017. The median duration of follow-up for survivors was 52.5 months. The cumulative incidences for grade II-IV and grade III-IV acute GVHD at day 180 post HCT were similar, at 39% and 14%, respectively, for haplo-HSCT compared with 50% and 16% for MUD HSCT (P not significant). Haplo-HSCT recipients had a lower cumulative incidence of moderate to severe chronic GVHD, at 22% (severe, 19%), compared with 31% (severe, 29%) for MUD HSCT recipients (P = .026). The time to onset of moderate to severe chronic GVHD was faster for haplo-HSCT recipients (213 days versus 280 days; P = .011). Among patients with grade II-IV acute GVHD, there was no significant between-group difference in organ involvement, with skin the most affected (75% for haplo-HSCT versus 70% for MUD HSCT), followed by the gastrointestinal tract (71% versus 69%) and liver (14% versus 17% MUD). For chronic GVHD, haplo-HSCT recipients had less involvement of the eyes (46% versus 75% for MUD; P < .001) and of the joints/fascia (12% versus 36%; P = .001). Also for cGVHD patients, haplo-HSCT recipients and MUD HSCT recipients had similar all-cause mortality (22% versus 18%; P = .89), but the former were more likely to be off immunosuppression at 2 years post-HCT (63% versus 43%; P = .03) compared with MUD.

Optimal Donor for African Americans with Hematologic Malignancy: HLA-Haploidentical Relative or Umbilical Cord Blood Transplant.

Although hematopoietic cell transplantation from an HLA-matched unrelated donor is potentially curative for hematologic malignancies, survival is lower for African Americans compared with Caucasians. Because only approximately 20% of African Americans will have an HLA-matched unrelated donor, many of these patients undergo HLA-haploidentical relative or umbilical cord blood transplantation. In this study, we analyzed outcomes after HLA-haploidentical related donor (n = 249) and umbilical cord blood (n = 118) transplantations in African American patients with hematologic malignancy between 2008 and 2016. The predominant disease was acute myelogenous leukemia for recipients of both types of donor grafts. The incidences of grade II-IV and III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease were higher after umbilical cord blood transplantation compared with HLA-haploidentical relative transplantation (56% and 29%, respectively, versus 33% and 11%, respectively; P < .0001). The 2-year incidence of transplantation-related mortality adjusted for age and conditioning regimen intensity was higher after umbilical cord blood transplantation compared with HLA-haploidentical related donor transplantation (31% versus 18%; P = .008); however, there were no between-group differences in the 2-year adjusted incidence of relapse (30% versus 34%; P = .51), overall survival (54% versus 57%; P = .66), or disease-free survival (43% versus 47%; P = .46). Our findings show that the use of HLA-haploidentical and umbilical cord blood transplants expands the access to transplantation with comparable leukemia-free and overall survival for African Americans with hematologic malignancies.

Fludarabine and Total-Body Irradiation Conditioning before Ablative Haploidentical Transplantation: Long-Term Safety and Efficacy.

Although myeloablative conditioning (MAC) before haploidentical donor transplant (HIDT) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide is being increasingly used, the optimal preparative regimen remains unclear. In our initial trial, the feasibility of HIDT following a MAC preparative regimen using fludarabine and 12 Gy of total-body irradiation was demonstrated in 30 patients. We now present long-term outcome results, including an additional 52 patients, now with 47 months (16 to 96) median follow-up. Median patient age was 42 (19 to 61) years. The most common diagnoses were acute myelogenous leukemia (51%) and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (33%), and 39% had a high/very high disease risk index (DRI). Engraftment was universal with no cases of primary or secondary graft failure. Grade 3 to 4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and moderate to severe chronic GVHD occurred in 17% and 23%, respectively. Nonrelapse mortality (NRM) was 7% at 1 year and 13% at 4 years. Estimated 4-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival, and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) were 67%, 60%, and 27%, respectively. CIR was significantly higher in patients with high/very high- versus low/intermediate-risk DRI (38% versus 20%, P= .032), which led to inferior 4-year OS (50% versus 77%, P = .001). Median time to systemic immunosuppressive therapy (IST) discontinuation was 7.8 months, with 84% of patients off IST at 2 years post-transplant. Current GHVD-free, relapse-free survival (CGRFS) at 2, 3, and 4 years was 60%, 57%, and 60%, respectively. This approach to MAC HIDT results in universal engraftment; low rates of NRM, infection, and clinically significant GVHD; and relatively rapid IST discontinuation, resulting in high rates of CGRFS and survival.

The Dilemma of Conditioning Intensity: When Does Myeloablative Conditioning Improve Outcomes for Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

The impact of conditioning intensity on different disease risk index (DRI) groups has not been evaluated. We retrospectively analyzed acute myelogenous leukemia (AML)/myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients in 2 groups based on DRI, to assess the impact of conditioning intensity on overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), relapse, and nonrelapse mortality (NRM). A total of 380 patients with either high/very high (n = 148) or low/intermediate DRI (n = 232) myeloid malignancy (AML, n = 278; MDS, n = 102) were included in the analysis. Median follow-up for survivors was 35 months. Median age was 58years (range, 18 to 75). Patient and transplant-related characteristics were 41% reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC), 59% myeloablative conditioning (MAC), 13% bone marrow graft, 29% matched related donor, 49% matched unrelated donor, 22% haploidentical donor, and 52% HCT-specific comorbidity index ≥ 3. Among patients with high/very high DRI, there was no difference in OS, DFS, relapse, and NRM between RIC and MAC conditioning groups. For low/intermediate risk DRI recipients of MAC had better 3-year OS estimate (69% versus 57%, P = .001), DFS (65% versus 51%, P = .003), and lower relapse (3-year cumulative incidence, 17% versus 32%; P = .01) but similar NRM (19% versus 17%, P = .04) to RIC recipients. On multivariable analysis MAC was associated with better DFS (hazard ratio [HR], .58; 95% confidence interval [CI], .39-.88; P = .01), lower relapse (HR, .56; 95% CI, .32 to .97; P = .038), and similar NRM (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, .54 to 2.26; P = .781) compared with RIC in the low/intermediate DRI group. Intensity had no impact on HCT outcomes in the high/very high DRI group. MAC improves DFS and relapse compared with RIC among AML/MDS patients with low/intermediate DRI. The finding of no such benefit in high/very high DRI needs to be further explored in a larger cohort with a longer follow-up.

Who Is a Better Donor for Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Young HLA-Mismatched Haploidentical Relative or an Older Fully HLA-Matched Sibling or Unrelated Donor?

T cell replete HLA-mismatched haploidentical transplantation (HIDT) with post-transplant cyclophosphamide is increasingly becoming an acceptable treatment approach for patients lacking timely access to a suitably matched related donor transplant (MRDT) or matched unrelated donor transplant (MUDT). Multiple recent registry and single-center studies have shown comparable overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates among HIDT, MRDT, and MUDT with a significantly lower risk of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) among HIDT recipients. Candidates for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) often have access to multiple donor sources, and a relevant question is whether outcomes can be improved with a younger HLA-mismatched haploidentical donor (≤35 years) rather than an older matched related donor (≥35 years) or matched unrelated donor (≥35 years). We analyzed 406 consecutive allogenic HSCT recipients, with a median age of 54 years (range, 19 to 77), after a MRDT with a donor age of ≥35 years (n = 222), MUDT with a donor age of ≥35 years (n = 91), and HIDT with a donor age of ≤35 years (n = 93). Median follow-up time for survivors was 51.5 months. Compared with MRDT and MUDT, HIDT recipients had a similar median age at time of HSCT, hematopoietic cell transplant comorbidity index, disease risk index distribution, and donor recipient sex matching. The survival estimates and relapse incidence at 3 years post-HSCT were OS (64% for MRDT, 54% for MUDT, and 62% for HIDT), DFS (55% for MRDT, 44% for MUDT, and 58% for HIDT), Transplant related mortality (TRM) (19% for MRDT, 16% for MUDT, and 18% for HIDT), and relapse (26% for MRDT, 37% for MUDT, and 24% for HIDT). HIDT recipients had better 3-year relapse rates compared with MUDT recipients (24% versus 37%, P= .048), with similar DFS and OS in a univariate analysis. MRDT recipients had a better relapse rate (26% versus 37%, P = .042) compared with MUDT recipients. Recipients of HIDT also had significantly lower rates of moderate to severe chronic GVHD compared with MRDT and MUDT recipients (P = .01). Multivariable analysis showed no effect of donor on OS, DFS, relapse, and TRM. Recipients of HIDT from a young donor ≤35 years had similar OS, lower rates of chronic GVHD, and better chronic GVHD-free, relapse-free survival compared with patients undergoing transplantation with an MRD or a MUD donor ≥35 years. This study suggests that given a situation where a choice between a young haploidentical relative and an older matched unrelated donor is to be made, one can achieve similar survival with a haploidentical donor and significantly lower rates of chronic GVHD.

Plain language summary of the TRANSFORM study primary analysis results: liso-cell as a second treatment regimen for large B-cell lymphoma following failure of the first treatment regimen.

What is this summary about? People diagnosed with a disease called large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) may experience return, or early relapse, of their disease within the first year after receiving and responding to their first (first-line) treatment regimen. Others may have primary refractory disease, meaning that the disease either did not respond to first-line treatment at all or only responded for a very brief period. Second (second-line) treatment includes immunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT, which has the potential to cure LBCL. However, if the disease does not respond to immunotherapy, people cannot receive ASCT, and less than 30% of people are cured.Therefore, new second-line treatment options are required, such as CAR T cell therapy, which uses a person's own genetically engineered lymphocytes, also called T cells, to fight their lymphoma. In this article, we summarize the key results of the phase 3 TRANSFORM clinical study that tested if liso-cel, a CAR T cell treatment, can safely and effectively be used as a second-line treatment for people with early relapsed or primary refractory (relapsed/refractory) LBCL.A total of 184 adults with relapsed/refractory LBCL who were able to receive ASCT were randomly treated with either liso-cel or standard of care (SOC) as second-line treatment. SOC included immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT.What were the key takeaways? Almost all (97%) people in the liso-cel group completed treatment, whereas 53% of people in the SOC group did not complete treatment, mostly due to their disease not responding or relapsing, and therefore they were not able to receive ASCT. People who received liso-cel as a second-line treatment lived longer without the occurrence of an unfavorable medical event or worsening of the disease and had a better response to treatment than those who received SOC as second-line treatment. People who received liso-cel reported side effects that researchers considered to be manageable, and that were known to occur with CAR T cell treatment.What were the main conclusions reported by the researchers? Results from the TRANSFORM study support the use of liso-cel as a more effective second-line treatment compared with SOC that is safe for people with relapsed/refractory LBCL.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03575351 (TRANSFORM study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Plain language summary of the KarMMa-3 study of ide-cel or standard of care regimens in people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

What is this summary about? This plain language summary describes the results of a Phase 3 study called KarMMa-3. In this ongoing study, researchers looked at a relatively new treatment for people with multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, whose cancer got worse despite treatment (refractory) or had cancer that at first improved with treatment, but eventually stopped responding (relapsed).How was this study conducted? In the KarMMa-3 study, people with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma received either a one-time infusion of a new treatment, named ide-cel, or one of the standard of care regimens currently available for patients with this cancer. People were treated with the standard of care regimens in weekly or monthly cycles until the cancer got worse, there were unacceptable side effects, or the person withdrew from the study.What were the results? The results of this study showed that people receiving the one-time infusion of ide-cel lived longer without the cancer getting worse and had a greater reduction in cancer cells than patients receiving the standard of care regimen. A higher percentage of patients receiving ide-cel responded to treatment than patients receiving the standard of care regimen, and the response to treatment was better with idecel. These results show that ide-cel is a promising treatment for this challenging disease.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03651128 (KarMMa-3 study).

Superior Survival of Black Versus White Patients Following Post-Transplant Cyclophosphamide-Based Haploidentical Transplantation for Adults with Hematologic Malignancy.

Available evidence from large registry studies has shown inferior survival for black adult patients following both unrelated donor and cord blood transplantation. Post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based haploidentical donor transplantation (HIDT) is being increasingly used in ethnic minorities. However, no studies of the impact of race on outcomes following HIDT have been reported. We analyzed 203 consecutive patients (123 white, 80 black) who underwent first HIDT using PTCy for hematologic malignancy at a single institution. Median recipient age was 53 (range, 19-75) years. Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) were used as the stem cell source in 66% of patients, and conditioning intensity was myeloablative (MA) in 41%. After a median follow-up of 36 months, the estimated 3-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR) were significantly better in black patients, compared with white patients (72% [95% confidence interval (CI), 60% to 81%], 65% [95% CI, 52% to 75%], and 25% [95% CI, 16% to 35] versus 50% [95% CI, 40% to 59%], 45% [95% CI, 36% to 54%], and 39% [95% CI, 31% to 47%], respectively; P < .001 for OS and DFS, P = .015 for CIR). In contrast, 3-year nonrelapse mortality was similar between black (11%) and white (16%) patients, as were the incidences of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and moderate-to-severe chronic GVHD. Improved survival was noted in all subgroups of black patients-younger versus older, male versus female, lower versus higher disease risk index, MA versus non-MA conditioning, or PBSC versus marrow stem cell source. In multivariate analysis, black race was independently associated with better OS (hazard ratio [HR], .47; P = .003), DFS (HR, .49; P = .003), and relapse (HR, .49; P = .01). Black patients achieve superior outcomes to their white counterparts following PTCy-based HIDT due to a decreased incidence of disease relapse.

Selecting the Best Donor for Haploidentical Transplant: Impact of HLA, Killer Cell Immunoglobulin-Like Receptor Genotyping, and Other Clinical Variables.

The use of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based haploidentical (haplo) transplant is increasing worldwide. However, because multiple potential haplo donors are usually available, data-driven guidance is clearly needed to help transplant centers prioritize donors. To that end, we retrospectively analyzed 208 consecutive donor-recipient pairs receiving PTCy-based haplo transplant at a single institution. Median recipient and donor age were 52 years (range, 19 to 75) and 38 years (range, 15 to 73), peripheral blood stem cell was the stem cell source in 66%, and myeloablative conditioning was used in 41%. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 33 months (range, 7 to 130). Donor variables analyzed included age, sex, relationship, cytomegalovirus (CMV) status, ABO compatibility, HLA disparity, and several natural killer (NK) alloreactivity models. Multivariate Cox analysis was used to adjust for known patient, disease, and transplant covariates. Donor characteristics independently associated with improved survival included presence of HLA-DR mismatch, HLA-DP nonpermissive mismatch, killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptor (KIR) receptor-ligand mismatch, and KIR B/x haplotype with KIR2DS2. Donor characteristics associated with inferior survival included parental donor relationship and the use of a CMV-seronegative donor for a CMV-seropositive patient. Increased HLA disparity (≥4/10 HLA allelic mismatches [graft-versus-host direction]) resulted in relapse protection at the expense of increased nonrelapse mortality with no associated survival effect. We further propose a donor risk factor scoring system to permit a more evidence-based selection algorithm for potential haplo donors. This large, single-institution analysis demonstrates the importance of HLA-DR/HLA-DP disparity, NK alloreactivity, and other clinical variables in the haplo donor selection process and suggests that KIR and HLA-DP genotyping should be performed routinely for haplo donor selection.