Brexucabtagene autoleucel for relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma in the United Kingdom: A real-world intention-to-treat analysis.

Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous CD19 CAR T-cell product, approved for relapsed/refractory (r/r) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). In ZUMA-2, brexu-cel demonstrated impressive responses in patients failing ≥2 lines, including a bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with an overall and complete response rate of 93% and 67%, respectively. Here, we report our real-world intention-to-treat (ITT) outcomes for brexu-cel in consecutive, prospectively approved patients, from 12 institutions in the United Kingdom between February 2021 and June 2023, with a focus on feasibility, efficacy, and tolerability. Of 119 approved, 104 underwent leukapheresis and 83 received a brexu-cel infusion. Progressive disease (PD) and/or manufacturing (MF) were the most common reasons for failure to reach harvest and/or infusion. For infused patients, best overall and complete response rates were 87% and 81%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 13.3 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) for infused patients was 21 months (10.1-NA) with a 6- and 12-month PFS of 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71-89) and 62% (95% CI, 49-73), respectively. ≥Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity occurred in 12% and 22%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, inferior PFS was associated with male sex, bulky disease, ECOG PS > 1 and previous MF. Cumulative incidence of non-relapse mortality (NRM) was 6%, 15%, and 25% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively, and mostly attributable to infection. Outcomes for infused patients in the UK are comparable to ZUMA-2 and other real-world reports. However, ITT analysis highlights a significant dropout due to PD and/or MF. NRM events warrant further attention.

Molecular MRD is strongly prognostic in patients with NPM1-mutated AML receiving venetoclax-based nonintensive therapy.

ABSTRACT: Assessment of measurable residual disease (MRD) by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction is strongly prognostic in patients with NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated with intensive chemotherapy; however, there are no data regarding its utility in venetoclax-based nonintensive therapy, despite high efficacy in this genotype. We analyzed the prognostic impact of NPM1 MRD in an international real-world cohort of 76 previously untreated patients with NPM1-mutated AML who achieved complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete hematological recovery following treatment with venetoclax and hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC). A total of 44 patients (58%) achieved bone marrow (BM) MRD negativity, and a further 14 (18%) achieved a reduction of ≥4 log10 from baseline as their best response, with no difference between HMAs and LDAC. The cumulative rates of BM MRD negativity by the end of cycles 2, 4, and 6 were 25%, 47%, and 50%, respectively. Patients achieving BM MRD negativity by the end of cycle 4 had 2-year overall of 84% compared with 46% if MRD was positive. On multivariable analyses, MRD negativity was the strongest prognostic factor. A total of 22 patients electively stopped therapy in BM MRD-negative remission after a median of 8 cycles, with 2-year treatment-free remission of 88%. In patients with NPM1-mutated AML attaining remission with venetoclax combination therapies, NPM1 MRD provides valuable prognostic information.

Missed irradiation of cellular blood components for vulnerable patients: Insights from 10 years of SHOT data.

BACKGROUND: Irradiation of cellular blood components is recommended for patients at risk of transfusion-associated graft-vs-host disease (TA-GvHD). Prestorage leucodepletion (LD) of blood components is standard in the UK since 1999. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Analysis of 10 years' reports from UK national hemovigilance scheme, Serious Hazards of Transfusion (2010-2019), where patients failed to receive irradiated components when indicated according to British Society for Haematology guidelines (2011). RESULTS: There were 956 incidents of failure to receive irradiated components all due to errors. One hundred and seventy two incidents were excluded from analysis, 125 of 172 (72.7%) because of missing essential information. No cases of TA-GvHD were reported in this cohort. The 784 patients received 2809 components (number unknown for 67 incidents). Most failures occurred in patients treated with purine analogues (365) or alemtuzumab (69), or with a history of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) (192). Together these make up 626 of 784 (79.9%). Poor communication is an important cause of errors. CONCLUSION: Leucodepletion appears to reduce the risk for TA-GvHD. None of 12 cases of TA-GvHD reported to SHOT prior to introduction of LD occurred in patients with conditions recommended for irradiated components by current guidelines. Irradiation indefinitely for all stages of HL is not based on good evidence and is a difficult guideline to follow. Further research on long-term immune function in HL is required. Variation between different national guidelines reflects the very limited evidence.

Timing of high-dose methotrexate CNS prophylaxis in DLBCL: an analysis of toxicity and impact on R-CHOP delivery.

High-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) is increasingly used as prophylaxis for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) at high risk of central nervous system (CNS) relapse. However, there is limited evidence to guide whether to intercalate HD-MTX (i-HD-MTX) between R-CHOP-21 (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone given at 21-day intervals) or to give it at the end of treatment (EOT) with R-CHOP-21. We conducted a retrospective, multicenter analysis of 334 patients with DLBCL who received CNS prophylaxis with i-HD-MTX (n = 204) or EOT HD-MTX (n = 130). Primary end points were R-CHOP delay rates and HD-MTX toxicity. Secondary end points were CNS relapse rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The EOT group had more patients with a high CNS international prognostic index (58% vs 39%; P < .001) and more concurrent intrathecal prophylaxis (56% vs 34%; P < .001). Of the 409 cycles of i-HD-MTX given, 82 (20%) were associated with a delay of next R-CHOP (median, 7 days). Delays were significantly increased when i-HD-MTX was given after day 9 post-R-CHOP (26% vs 16%; P = .01). On multivariable analysis, i-HD-MTX was independently associated with increased R-CHOP delays. Increased mucositis, febrile neutropenia, and longer median inpatient stay were recorded with i-HD-MTX delivery. Three-year cumulative CNS relapse incidence was 5.9%, with no differences between groups. There was no difference in survival between groups. We report increased toxicity and R-CHOP delay with i-HD-MTX compared with EOT delivery but no difference in CNS relapse or survival. Decisions on HD-MTX timing should be individualized and, where i-HD-MTX is favored, we recommend scheduling before day 10 of R-CHOP cycles.