Axicabtagene ciloleucel compared to tisagenlecleucel for the treatment of aggressive B-cell lymphoma.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). We performed a retrospective study to evaluate safety and efficacy of axi-cel and tisa-cel outside the setting of a clinical trial. Data from consecutive patients with R/R LBCL who underwent apheresis for axi-cel or tisa-cel were retrospectively collected from 12 Spanish centers. A total of 307 patients underwent apheresis for axi-cel (n=152) and tisa-cel (n=155) from November 2018 to August 2021, of which 261 (85%) received a CAR T infusion (88% and 82%, respectively). Median time from apheresis to infusion was 41 days for axi-cel and 52 days for tisa-cel (P=0.006). None of the baseline characteristics were significantly different between both cohorts. Both cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events (NE) were more frequent in the axi-cel group (88% vs. 73%, P=0.003, and 42% vs. 16%, P<0.001, respectively). Infections in the first 6 months post-infusion were also more common in patients treated with axi-cel (38% vs. 25%, P=0.033). Non-relapse mortality was not significantly different between the axi-cel and tisa-cel groups (7% and 4%, respectively, P=0.298). With a median follow-up of 9.2 months, median PFS and OS were 5.9 and 3 months, and 13.9 and 11.2 months for axi-cel and tisa-cel, respectively. The 12-month PFS and OS for axi-cel and tisa-cel were 41% and 33% (P=0.195), 51% and 47% (P=0.191), respectively. Factors associated with lower OS in the multivariate analysis were increased lactate dehydrogenase, ECOG ≥2 and progressive disease before lymphodepletion. Safety and efficacy results in our real-world experience were comparable with those reported in the pivotal trials. Patients treated with axi-cel experienced more toxicity but similar non-relapse mortality compared with those receiving tisa-cel. Efficacy was not significantly different between both products.

Anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy in elderly patients: multicentric real-world experience from GETH-TC/GELTAMO.

BACKGROUND: CAR-T cell therapy is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). However, elderly patients might not be candidates for this therapy due to its toxicity, and criteria for candidate selection are lacking. Our aim was to analyze efficacy and toxicity results of CAR-T cell therapy in the population of 70 years and older as compared to those obtained in younger patients in the real-world setting. METHODS: A multicentric retrospective study was performed including patients with R/R aggressive LBCL who received commercial CAR-T cell therapy with either tisagenlecleucel or axicabtagene ciloleucel within Spanish GETH-TC/GELTAMO centers between 2019 and 2023. RESULTS: As of August 2023, 442 adult patients with aggressive LBCL underwent apheresis for CAR-T cell therapy as third or subsequent line and had follow-up data. Of 412 infused patients, 71 (17%) were 70 years or older. Baseline characteristics, product selection and characteristics at apheresis (including disease status, Ann Arbor stage, R-IPI, bulky disease, LDH and ECOG) were comparable between groups. Median time from both approval to infusion and apheresis to infusion did not differ. No differences were found between groups in overall and complete response rates at one and three months. With a median follow-up of 12.2 months (range 1-44), 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were comparable between groups (35.2% in <70y vs. 35.9% in ≥70y (p= p=0.938) and 51.1% and 52.1% (p= p=0.885), respectively). Age ≥70 years did not affect PFS (HR 0.98, p=0.941) and OS (HR 0.97, p=0.890) in the univariate and multivariate analysis. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was observed in 82% patients in <70y and 84.5% in ≥70y (p=0.408). Grade ≥3 CRS was more frequent in the older group (5% vs. 15%, p=0.002). In the multivariate analysis, age ≥70y was associated with an increased risk of grade ≥3 CRS (OR 3.7, p=0.013). No differences were observed in terms of overall neurotoxicity (35% vs. 42%, p=0.281) or grade ≥3 (12% vs. 17%, p=0.33). The proportion of patients with infections, admission to intensive care unit within the first month and non-relapse mortality were similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: CAR-T cell therapy in patients older than 70 years showed similar efficacy than that observed in younger patients in the real-world setting. However, age ≥70 years was an independent risk factor for grade 3-4 CRS. Need of additional strategies to reduce toxicity in this population should be addressed in future studies.

Relevance of renin expression by real-time PCR in acute myeloid leukemia.

The search for useful molecular markers in the diagnosis of AML and in the follow-up of minimal residual disease (MRD) has been the focus of many recent studies. Previous research showed that, while normal bone marrow cells lack expression of renin, myeloid blasts have been reported to do so. The aim was to study the expression of the renin gene by the use of real-time quantitative PCR (RQ-PCR) at diagnosis in acute myeloid leukemia patients (AML) and to assess its possible relevance in the prognosis and outcome of such patients. This study analysed 76 samples from patients with AML, with follow-up of positive patients. Thirty-one patients (41%) were positive for renin gene expression at diagnosis. All renin-positive patients at diagnosis showed no expression during complete remission (CR), but expression recurred in those experiencing relapse and persisted when the disease was refractory to treatment. Although the results suggest that the sub-group of renin-positive AML patients might have a worse outcome and a higher relapse rate (at 5 years, the projected rate of disease-free survival was 18.5 +/- 9.8% for renin-positive and 23.5 +/- 8.8% for renin-negative patients), no significant differences were found. It is believed that further studies should aim to validate whether such a difference exists, using a much larger and homogeneus group of patients.