Treatment outcomes in patients with large B-cell lymphoma after progression to chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.

Over 60% of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients who receive chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells will experience disease progression. There is no standard next line of therapy and information in this setting is scarce and heterogeneous. We analyzed 387 R/R LBCL patients who progressed after CAR T cells from July 2018 until March 2022 in Spain and the United Kingdom. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.3 months, with significant differences according to the interval between infusion and progression (<2 months [1.9 months], 2-6 months [5.2 months], and >6 months [not reached]). After progression, 237 (61%) patients received treatment. Focusing on the first subsequent therapy, overall (complete) response rates were 67% (38%) for polatuzumab-bendamustine-rituximab (POLA), 51% (36%) for bispecific antibodies (BsAb), 45% (35%) for radiotherapy (RT), 33% (26%) for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), 25% (0%) for lenalidomide (LENA), and 25% (14%) for chemotherapy (CT). In terms of survival, 12-month progression-free survival and OS was 36.2% and 51.0% for POLA, 32.0% and 50.1% for BsAb, 30.8% and 37.5% for RT, 29.9% and 27.8% for ICI, 7.3% and 20.8% for LENA, and 6.1% and 18.3% for CT. Thirty-two (14%) patients received an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant with median OS not reached after a median follow-up of 15.1 months. In conclusion, patients with R/R LBCL who progress within the first 2 months after CAR T-cell therapy have dismal outcomes. Novel targeted agents, such as polatuzumab and BsAbs, can achieve prolonged survival after CAR T-cell therapy failure.

Recent Bendamustine Treatment Before Apheresis Has a Negative Impact on Outcomes in Patients With Large B-Cell Lymphoma Receiving Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy.

PURPOSE: Approximately 30%-40% of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) infused with CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells achieve durable responses. Consensus guidelines suggest avoiding bendamustine before apheresis, but specific data in this setting are lacking. We report distinct outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy according to previous bendamustine exposure. METHODS: The study included CAR T-cell recipients from seven European sites. Safety, efficacy, and CAR T-cell expansion kinetics were analyzed according to preapheresis bendamustine exposure. Additional studies on the impact of the washout period and bendamustine dose were performed. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses were carried out for all efficacy comparisons between bendamustine-exposed and bendamustine-naïve patients. RESULTS: The study included 439 patients with R/R LBCL infused with CD19-targeted commercial CAR T cells, of whom 80 had received bendamustine before apheresis. Exposed patients had significantly lower CD3+ cells and platelets at apheresis. These patients had a lower overall response rate (ORR, 53% v 72%; P < .01), a shorter progression-free survival (PFS, 3.1 v 6.2 months; P = .04), and overall survival (OS, 10.3 v 23.5 months; P = .01) in comparison with the bendamustine-naïve group. Following adjustment methods for baseline variables, these differences were mitigated. Focusing on the impact of bendamustine washout before apheresis, those with recent (<9 months) exposure (N = 42) displayed a lower ORR (40% v 72%; P < .01), shorter PFS (1.3 v 6.2 months; P < .01), and OS (4.6 v 23.5 months; P < .01) in comparison with bendamustine-naïve patients. These differences remained significant after IPTW and PSM analysis. Conversely, the cumulative dose of bendamustine before apheresis did not affect CAR-T efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSION: Recent bendamustine exposure before apheresis was associated with negative treatment outcomes after CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy and should be therefore avoided in CAR T-cell candidates.

Graft versus host disease-related eosinophilic fasciitis: cohort description and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic graft versus host disease (cGVHD) simulating eosinophilic fasciitis (EF) is an underdiagnosed and challenging complication due to the lack of knowledge about its pathogenesis, refractoriness to traditional immunosuppressive agents and their negative impact on the physical function and quality of life. The aim of this study is to describe the clinical-biological characteristics and response to treatment of a case series and to provide a comprehensive literature review on cGVHD related EF involvement. METHODS: Prospective observational study to describe the clinical and diagnostic evaluation characteristics of patients with EF-like follow-up as part of our multidisciplinary cGVHD consultations. In addition, the literature on joint and/or fascial musculoskeletal manifestations due to cGVHD was comprehensively reviewed. RESULTS: 118 patients were evaluated in multidisciplinary cGVHD consultations, 39 of whom (33%) developed fasciitis. Notably, 11 patients had isolated joint contractures without sclerotic skin. After a median of three lines of treatment, the vast majority of patients achieved some degree of response. 94 potentially eligible articles were identified by the search strategy, with 17 of them, the majority isolated case reports, making the final selection. The validated staging scales used for the assessment were the Joint and Fascial Score and the Photographic Range of Motion. CONCLUSION: Fascial/articular involvement needs to be recognized and evaluated early. To our knowledge, our cohort is the second largest series to have been reported. Literature addressing fascial/joints complications related to cGVHD is scarce. The search for new biomarkers, the use of advanced imaging techniques and multidisciplinary approach may help improve the prognosis of patients with cGVHD.