Brexucabtagene autoleucel in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma, intention-to-treat use in the DESCAR-T registry.

Not available.

Empiric vs Preemptive Antifungal Strategy in High-Risk Neutropenic Patients on Fluconazole Prophylaxis: A Randomized Trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Empiric antifungal therapy is considered the standard of care for high-risk neutropenic patients with persistent fever. The impact of a preemptive, diagnostic-driven approach based on galactomannan screening and chest computed tomography scan on demand on survival and on the risk of invasive fungal disease (IFD) during the first weeks of high-risk neutropenia is unknown. METHODS: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients were randomly assigned to receive caspofungin empirically (arm A) or preemptively (arm B), while receiving fluconazole 400 mg daily prophylactically. The primary end point of this noninferiority study was overall survival (OS) 42 days after randomization. RESULTS: Of 556 patients recruited, 549 were eligible: 275 in arm A and 274 in arm B. Eighty percent of the patients had AML or MDS requiring high-dose chemotherapy, and 93% of them were in the first induction phase. At day 42, the OS was not inferior in arm B (96.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 93.8%-98.3%) when compared with arm A (93.1%; 95% CI, 89.3%-95.5%). The rates of IFDs at day 84 were not significantly different, 7.7% (95% CI, 4.5%-10.8%) in arm B vs 6.6% (95% CI, 3.6%-9.5%) in arm A. The rate of patients who received caspofungin was significantly lower in arm B (27%) than in arm A (63%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The preemptive antifungal strategy was safe for high-risk neutropenic patients given fluconazole as prophylaxis, halving the number of patients receiving antifungals without excess mortality or IFDs. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01288378; EudraCT 2010-020814-27.

[Mobilization and conditioning protocols actualization for autologous stem cell transplantation for autoimmune diseases: Guidelines from MATHEC-SFGM-TC]. / Actualisation des protocoles de mobilisation et conditionnement pour la pratique des autogreffes de cellules souches hématopoïétiques chez les patients atteints de maladies auto-immunes : recommandations de la Société francophone de greffe de moelle et de thérapie cellulaire (MATHEC-SFGM-TC).

The Francophone Society of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (SFGM-TC) organized the 13th workshop on hematopoietic stem cell transplantation clinical practices harmonization procedures in September 2022 in Lille, France. The aim of this workshop is to update the mobilization and conditioning protocols for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for autoimmune diseases, and to specify contraindications for transplant, conditioning regimen selection, immunosuppressive treatment discontinuation before mobilization and disease-specific surveillance.

A real-world comparison of tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel CAR T cells in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) have both demonstrated impressive clinical activity in relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In this study, we analyzed the outcome of 809 patients with R/R DLBCL after two or more previous lines of treatment who had a commercial chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells order for axi-cel or tisa-cel and were registered in the retrospective French DESCAR-T registry study ( NCT04328298 ). After 1:1 propensity score matching (n = 418), the best overall response rate/complete response rate (ORR/CRR) was 80%/60% versus 66%/42% for patients treated with axi-cel compared to tisa-cel, respectively (P < 0.001 for both ORR and CRR comparisons). After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, the 1-year progression-free survival was 46.6% for axi-cel and 33.2% for tisa-cel (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-0.79; P = 0.0003). Overall survival (OS) was also significantly improved after axi-cel infusion compared to after tisa-cel infusion (1-year OS 63.5% versus 48.8%; HR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88; P = 0.0072). Similar findings were observed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting statistical approach. Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome was significantly more frequent with axi-cel than with tisa-cel, but no significant difference was observed for grade ≥3. Regarding immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), both grade 1-2 and grade ≥3 ICANS were significantly more frequent with axi-cel than with tisa-cel. In conclusion, our matched comparison study supports a higher efficacy and also a higher toxicity of axi-cel compared to tisa-cel in the third or more treatment line for R/R DLBCL.