Real-world and clinical trial outcomes in large B-cell lymphoma with axicabtagene ciloleucel across race and ethnicity.

ABSTRACT: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Despite extensive data supporting its use, outcomes stratified by race and ethnicity groups are limited. Here, we report clinical outcomes with axi-cel in patients with R/R LBCL by race and ethnicity in both real-world and clinical trial settings. In the real-world setting, 1290 patients who received axi-cel between 2017 and 2020 were identified from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database; 106 and 169 patients were included from the ZUMA-1 and ZUMA-7 trials, respectively. Overall survival was consistent across race/ethnicity groups. However, non-Hispanic (NH) Black patients had lower overall response rate (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.63) and lower complete response rate (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97) than NH White patients. NH Black patients also had a shorter progression-free survival vs NH White (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.04-1.90) and NH Asian patients (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.08-2.59). NH Asian patients had a longer duration of response than NH White (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.94) and Hispanic patients (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.97). There was no difference in cytokine release syndrome by race/ethnicity; however, higher rates of any-grade immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome were observed in NH White patients than in other patients. These results provide important context when treating patients with R/R LBCL with CAR T-cell therapy across different racial and ethnic groups. ZUMA-1 and ZUMA-7 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: #NCT02348216 and #NCT03391466, respectively) are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Benefit of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus chemoimmunotherapy in older patients and/or patients with poor ECOG performance status with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after 2 or more lines of prior therapy.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) in trials has demonstrated favorable efficacy compared with historical controls after ≥2 lines of therapy for the treatment of relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Herein, we compared the real-world effectiveness of axi-cel with efficacy and effectiveness of chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in patients aged ≥65 years and patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 2. A total of 1146 patients treated with commercial axi-cel for R/R LBCL with ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research prospective observational study, and 469 patients treated with CIT for R/R LBCL after ≥2 lines of prior therapy were included from SCHOLAR-1 (an international, multicohort, retrospective study). After propensity score matching, at a median follow-up of 24 months for patients receiving axi-cel and 60 months for patients receiving CIT, 12-month overall survival rates were 62% and 28%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.24-0.37]). Objective response rate (ORR) was 76% (complete response [CR] rate 58%) in patients receiving axi-cel versus 28% (CR rate 16%) for those receiving CIT. A 57% difference in ORR (55% difference in CR rate) favoring axi-cel over CIT was observed among patients aged ≥65 years. Increased magnitude of benefit in response rates for axi-cel versus CIT was also observed among patients with ECOG PS = 2. These findings further support the broader use of axi-cel in older patients and patients with ECOG PS = 2 with R/R LBCL.

Predicting Survival for Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy: A Validation of Survival Models Using Follow-Up Data From ZUMA-1.

OBJECTIVES: Survival extrapolation for chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies is challenging, owing to their unique mechanistic properties that translate to complex hazard functions. Axicabtagene ciloleucel is indicated for the treatment of relapse or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after 2 or more lines of therapy based on the ZUMA-1 trial. Four data snapshots are available, with minimum follow-up of 12, 24, 36, and 48 months. This analysis explores how survival extrapolations for axicabtagene ciloleucel using ZUMA-1 data can be validated and compared. METHODS: Three different parametric modeling approaches were applied: standard parametric, spline-based, and cure-based models. Models were compared using a range of metrics, across the 4 data snapshot, including visual fit, plausibility of long-term estimates, statistical goodness of fit, inspection of hazard plots, point-estimate accuracy, and conditional survival estimates. RESULTS: Standard and spline-based parametric extrapolations were generally incapable of fitting the ZUMA-1 data well. Cure-based models provided the best fit based on the earliest data snapshot, with extrapolations remaining consistent as data matured. At 48 months, the maximum survival overestimate was 8.3% (Gompertz mixture-cure model) versus the maximum underestimate of 33.5% (Weibull standard parametric model). CONCLUSIONS: Where a plateau in the survival curve is clinically plausible, cure-based models may be helpful in making accurate predictions based on immature data. The ability to reliably extrapolate from maturing data may reduce delays in patient access to potentially lifesaving treatments. Additional research is required to understand how models compare in broader contexts, including different treatments and therapeutic areas.

Review of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment pathways and early clinical experience of trifluridine/tipiracil in the UK named patient programme.

BACKGROUND: The standard first- and second- line chemotherapy backbone regimens for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine-based with addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin. Until recently, evidence for optimal sequencing post second-line was sparse. Trifluridine/tipiracil (indicated for mCRC and gastric cancer after standard chemotherapies) was made available to UK patients via a named patient programme (NPP) before receiving marketing authorisation in Europe in 2016, allowing characterisation of UK treatment pathways, and evaluation of trifluridine/tipiracil in a UK non-trial population. METHODS: Data collected routinely for the NPP were analysed to describe the patient demographics, clinical characteristics and treatment pathways. Patients eligible for the programme were adults (≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed mCRC who had previously received chemotherapy treatment(s). RESULTS: Of the 250 eligible patients enrolled in the NPP, 194 patients received ≥1 dose of trifluridine/tipiracil and 56 patients did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil. The following results are reported first for patients who received trifluridine/tipiracil and second for those who did not receive trifluridine/tipiracil: median (IQR) age was 63.0 (54.0-69.0) and 62.0 (54.8-69.0) years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score was 0 for 28 and 14%, 1 for 65 and 70%, 2 for 7 and 16%. In terms of previous systemic treatments 47 and 43% had 2 prior lines of therapy. FOLFOX-, FOLFIRI- and CAPOX-based therapies were the most common first-line regimens in patients receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (37, 35 and 21%, respectively), and in patients not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil (41, 30 and 20%, respectively). Second-line treatment regimens in patients receiving and not receiving trifluridine/tipiracil were most commonly FOLFIRI-based (48 and 41%, respectively) and FOLFOX-based (19 and 21%, respectively). Patients received a median of 2 cycles of trifluridine/tipiracil with a median treatment duration of 1.8 (95% CI: 1.8-2.4) months. In patients who discontinued treatment due to disease progression, the median progression-free duration was 2.8 (95% CI: 2.4-2.9) months. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the number of treatment pathways used to treat mCRC in routine UK clinical practice prior to the marketing authorisation and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approval of trifluridine/tipiracil and highlight the lack of clinical guidelines for mCRC.

Real-World Outcomes with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapies in Large B Cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies, including axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), are innovative treatments for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL). Following initial regulatory approvals, real-world evidence (RWE) of clinical outcomes with these therapies has been accumulating rapidly. Notably, several large registry studies have been published recently. Here we comprehensively describe clinical outcomes with approved CAR-T therapies in patients with r/r LBCL using available RWE. We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, and 15 conference proceedings to identify studies published between 2017 and July 2022 that included ≥10 patients with r/r LBCL treated with commercially available CAR-T therapies. Eligible study designs were retrospective or prospective observational studies. Key outcomes of interest were objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Random-effects meta-analyses were used to compare real-world outcomes with those of pivotal clinical trials and to compare clinical outcomes associated with axi-cel and tisa-cel. Study cohort mapping was conducted to avoid including patients more than once. Of 76 cohorts we identified, 46 reported patients treated specifically with either axi-cel or tisa-cel, with 39 cohorts (n = 2754 patients) including axi-cel and 20 (n = 1649) including tisa-cel. No studies of liso-cel that met the inclusion criteria were identified during the search period. One-half of the tisa-cel cohorts were European, compared with 33% of the axi-cel cohorts. Among studies with available data, axi-cel had a significantly shorter median time from apheresis to CAR-T infusion than tisa-cel. Despite including broader patient populations, real-world effectiveness and safety of both axi-cel and tisa-cel were consistent with data from the pivotal clinical trials. Comparative meta-analysis of axi-cel versus tisa-cel demonstrated adjusted hazard ratios for OS and PFS of .60 (95% confidence interval [CI], .47 to .77) and .67 (95% CI, .57 to .78), respectively, both in favor of axi-cel. Odds ratios (ORs) for ORR and CR rate, both favoring axi-cel over tisa-cel, were 2.05 (95% CI, 1.76 to 2.40) and 1.70 (95% CI, 1.46 to 1.96), respectively. The probability of grade ≥3 CRS was comparable with axi-cel and tisa-cel, whereas axi-cel was associated with a higher incidence of grade ≥3 ICANS (OR, 3.95; 95% CI, 3.05 to 5.11). Our meta-analysis indicates that CAR-T therapies have manageable safety profiles and are effective in a wide range of patients with r/r LBCL, and that axi-cel is associated with improved OS and PFS and increased risk of grade ≥3 ICANS compared with tisa-cel. Limitations of this study include nonrandomized treatments, potential unknown prognostic factors, and the lack of available real-world data for liso-cel.

Quality-Adjusted Time without Symptoms or Toxicity: Analysis of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel versus Standard of Care in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Large B Cell Lymphoma.

The quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) methodology provides a comprehensive framework for treatment comparison that partitions survival time into distinct health states reflecting both treatment toxicity and disease progression. ZUMA-7 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03391466), a phase 3 randomized open-label multicenter study, was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), a chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy, compared with standard of care (SOC) involving platinum-based salvage chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) consolidation as a second-line treatment for relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B cell lymphoma (LBCL), and met its primary endpoint of improved event-free survival (EFS). We aimed to use the Q-TWiST method to compare the quality-adjusted survival of R/R LBCL patients treated with axi-cel and those treated with SOC who were enrolled in ZUMA-7. The preplanned analysis of overall survival (OS) was partitioned into 3 mutually exclusive health states: time with grade ≥3 adverse events before the event as defined in the EFS analysis (TOX), time without severe toxicity before the event (TWiST), and time after the event (REL). Q-TWiST was computed as a weighted sum of mean TOX, TWiST, and REL values multiplied by state-specific quality of life (QoL) utility scores. Q-TWiST was evaluated in the intention-to-treat cohort at median follow-up. A relative Q-TWiST gain of 10% was deemed "clinically important" and a gain of ≥15% was deemed "clearly clinically important" based on established categorization. Sensitivity analyses with follow-up ranging from 3 months to the maximum follow-up and subgroup analyses by age and R/R status were explored. At a median follow-up of 23.5 months, the axi-cel cohort showed a significantly longer time without severe toxicity compared with the SOC cohort, with a mean TWiST duration of 11.18 months versus 5.39 months, respectively. The mean TOX was 1.16 months versus .74 months, and mean REL was 6.02 months versus 10.66 months. Quality-adjusted survival was significantly longer with axi-cel by 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.3 to 5.2 months), representing a relative gain of 21.9%. This was reflected across all subgroups, with estimated Q-TWiST gains of 3.1 months (95% CI, 1.5 to 4.9 months) for patients age <65 years, 5.2 months (95% CI, 2.4 to 7.9 months) for those age ≥65 years, 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 4.9 months) for those with primary refractory disease, 9.1 months (95% CI, 3.9 to months 13.5) for those who relapsed within 6 months, and 4.1 months (95% CI, 1.1 to 7.1 months) for those who relapsed between 6 and 12 months. The Q-TWiST gain for axi-cel also was statistically significant across follow-up durations, increasing from .2 month (95% CI, .1 to .3 month) at a 3-month follow-up to 4.9 months (95% CI, 2.4 to 7.8 months) at the maximum follow-up of 37.7 months. Axi-cel was associated with a statistically significant and "clearly clinically important" gain in quality-adjusted survival, regardless of the relative decline in QoL associated with treatment toxicity, disease progression, or additional cancer treatment. This finding adds to the existing evidence supporting a benefit for axi-cel as a second-line treatment for patients with R/R LBCL.

Validity of event-free survival as a surrogate endpoint in haematological malignancy: Review of the literature and health technology assessments.

OBJECTIVE: Event-free survival (EFS) is increasingly used as a primary endpoint in trials of haematological malignancies (HMs). A key consideration is whether EFS can reliably predict survival. METHODS: We conducted a review of the scientific literature and health technology assessments to evaluate evidence for EFS-OS surrogacy in HMs and acceptability of EFS by payers. RESULTS: Evidence of surrogacy varies by indication and line of therapy. In first-line AML, EFS is highly correlated with OS at the trial-level supporting its use as an early endpoint for traditional approval of treatments with curative intent. Surrogacy was also demonstrated in first-line DLBCL but remains unexplored in relapsed/refractory setting where post-transplant EFS24 was not prognostic of survival. In first-line FL, PTCL, T-LBL, and MCL, EFS24 is prognostic of survival but trial-level surrogacy has not yet been evaluated. CONCLUSION: Strong EFS-OS correlation required for surrogacy may only be achievable in HMs with treatments characterised by high rates of durable remissions. Nevertheless, EFS24 is associated with favourable outcomes and remains a clinically meaningful endpoint in HMs.

Drug therapy for heart failure in older patients-what do they want?

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is predominantly seen in older patients, and therefore real life medicine often requires the extrapolation of findings from trials conducted in much younger populations. Prescribing patterns and potential benefits in the elderly are heavily influenced by polypharmacy and co-morbid pathologies. Increasing longevity may become less relevant in the frail elderly, whereas improving quality of life (QoL) often becomes priority; the onus being on improving wellbeing, maintaining independence for longer, and delaying institutionalisation. Specific studies evaluating elderly patients with CHF are lacking and little is known regarding the tolerability and side-effect profile of evidence based drug therapies in this population. There has been recent interest on the impact of heart rate in patients with symptomatic CHF. Ivabradine, with selective heart rate lowering capabilities, is of benefit in patients with CHF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction in sinus rhythm, resulting in reduction of heart failure hospitalisation and cardiovascular death. This manuscript will focus on CHF and the older patient and will discuss the impact of heart rate, drug therapies and tolerability. It will also highlight the unmet need for specific studies that focus on patient-centred study end points rather than mortality targets that characterise most therapeutic trials. An on-going study evaluating the impact of ivabradine on QoL that presents a unique opportunity to evaluate the tolerability and impact of an established therapy on a wide range of real life, older patients with CHF will be discussed.