Outpatient CAR T-Cell Therapy as Standard of Care: Current Perspectives and Considerations.

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) has altered the treatment landscape of several hematologic malignancies. Until recently, most CAR-T infusions have been administered in the inpatient setting, due to their toxicity profile. However, the advent of new product constructs, as well as improved detection and management of adverse effects, have greatly increased the safety in administering these therapies. CAR-T indications continue to expand, and inpatient administration is associated with increased healthcare resource utilization and overall cost. Therefore, transitioning CAR-T administration to the outpatient setting has been of great interest in an effort to improve access, reduce financial burden, and improve patient satisfaction. Establishment of a successful outpatient CAR-T requires several components, including a multidisciplinary cellular therapy team and an outpatient center with appropriate clinical space and personnel. Additionally, clear criteria for outpatient administration eligibility and for inpatient admission with pathways for prompt toxicity evaluation and admission, and toxicity management guidelines should be implemented. Education about CAR-T therapy and its associated toxicities is imperative for all clinical staff, as well as patients and their caregivers. Finally, rigorous financial planning and close collaboration with payers to ensure equitable access, while effectively managing cost, are essential to program success and sustainability. This review provides a summary of currently published experiences, as well as expert opinion regarding implementation of an outpatient CAR-T program.

Glofitamab stimulates immune cell infiltration of CNS tumors and induces clinical responses in secondary CNS lymphoma.

Although CD20xCD3 bispecific antibodies are effective against systemic B-cell lymphomas, their efficacy in CNS lymphoma is unknown. Here, we report the CD20xCD3 bispecific, glofitamab, penetrates the blood-brain barrier, stimulates immune-cell infiltration of CNS tumors, and induces responses in CNS lymphoma.

Bendamustine lymphodepletion is a well-tolerated alternative to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion for axicabtagene ciloleucel therapy for aggressive B-cell lymphoma.

Fludarabine/cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy) is established for lymphodepletion (LD) prior to standard-of-care CAR T-cell therapy for lymphoma. There is ongoing need to test alternative LD regimens to preserve efficacy, improve safety, and address challenges including the recent national fludarabine shortage. We retrospectively evaluated outcomes among patients with relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma who received bendamustine (n = 27) or Flu/Cy (n = 42) LD before axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) at our institution. The median change in absolute lymphocyte count from pre-LD to time of axi-cel infusion was -0.6×109 /L in bendamustine cohort and -0.7×109 /L in Flu/Cy cohort. The best overall response/complete response rates were 77.8% (95% CI: 57.7%-91.4%)/48.1% (95% CI: 28.7%-68.1%) among bendamustine cohort and 81.0% (95% CI: 65.9%-91.4%)/50.0% (95% CI: 34.2%-65.8%) among Flu/Cy cohort. Six-month progression-free survival were 43.8% (95% CI: 24.7%-61.3%) and 55.6% (95% CI: 39.0%-69.3%) in bendamustine and Flu/Cy cohorts, while 6-month overall survival were 81.5% (95% CI: 61.1%-91.8%) and 90.4% (95% CI: 76.4%-96.3%), respectively. Relative to Flu/Cy-treated patients, bendamustine-treated patients did not show an increase in hazards associated with experiencing progression/relapse/death (aHR:1.4 [95% CI: 0.7-2.8]; p = .32) or death (aHR:1.6 [95% CI: 0.5-5.6]; p = .46), after adjusting for baseline number of prior therapies and refractory disease. Any grade/grade ≥3 CRS were observed in 89%/3.7% and 86%/4.8% among bendamustine and Flu/Cy cohorts, while any grade ICANS/grade ≥3 ICANS were observed in 30%/19% and 55%/31% respectively. While more Flu/Cy-treated patients experienced grade ≥3 neutropenia compared with bendamustine-treated patients (100% vs. 68%), grade ≥3 infectious complications were comparable (24% vs. 19% respectively). More patients received bendamustine LD and axi-cel as outpatient than Flu/Cy cohort, without increased toxicities and with shorter median inpatient stays. In conclusion, we observed comparable efficacy and lower any grade ICANS among patients receiving bendamustine relative to Flu/Cy LD, followed by axi-cel.

Cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin combined with chemoimmunotherapy in untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

In patients with treatment-naive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the POLARIX study (A Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Polatuzumab Vedotin With Rituximab-Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Prednisone [R-CHP] Versus Rituximab-Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone [R-CHOP] in Participants With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma) reported a 6.5% improvement in the 2-year progression-free survival (PFS), with no difference in overall survival (OS) or safety using polatuzumab vedotin, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (pola-R-CHP) compared with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of pola-R-CHP for DLBCL. We modeled a hypothetical cohort of US adults (mean age, 65 years) with treatment-naive DLBCL by developing a Markov model (lifetime horizon) to model the cost-effectiveness of pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP using a range of plausible long-term outcomes. Progression rates and OS were estimated from POLARIX. Outcome measures were reported in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Assuming a 5-year PFS of 69.6% with pola-R-CHP and 62.7% with R-CHOP, pola-R-CHP was cost-effective at a WTP of $150 000 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $84 308/QALY). pola-R-CHP was no longer cost-effective if its 5-year PFS was 66.1% or lower. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that pola-R-CHP is cost-effective up to a cost of $276 312 at a WTP of $150 000. pola-R-CHP was the cost-effective strategy in 56.6% of the 10 000 Monte Carlo iterations at a WTP of $150 000. If the absolute benefit in PFS is maintained over time, pola-R-CHP is cost-effective compared with R-CHOP at a WTP of $150 000/QALY. However, its cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on its long-term outcomes and costs of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy. Routine usage of pola-R-CHP would add significantly to health care expenditures. Price reductions or identification of subgroups that have maximal benefit would improve cost-effectiveness.