A research center's experience of T-cell redirecting therapies in triple-class refractory multiple myeloma.

The efficacies of chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cells and bispecific monoclonal antibodies (BiAbs) for triple-class refractory (TCR) myeloma have not previously been compared, and clinical data on how to rescue patients after relapse from these immunotherapies are limited. A retrospective study of 73 TCR patients included in trials was conducted: 36 received CAR-T and 37 received BiAbs. CAR-T produced a higher overall response rate (ORR) than BiAbs (97.1% vs. 56.8%, P=0.002). After a median of follow-up of 18.7 months, no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) was observed between the CAR-T and BiAbs groups (16.6 vs. 10.8 months; P=0.090), whereas overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the CAR-T than in the BiAbs group (49.2 vs. 22.6 months; P=0.021). BiAbs following CAR-T yielded a higher ORR and longer PFS2 than did non-redirecting T cell therapies after CAR-T (ORR: 87.5% vs. 50.0%, PFS2: 22.9 vs. 12.4 months). By contrast, BiAbs following BiAbs resulted in an ORR of 33% and PFS2 of 8.4 months, which was similar to that produced by the non-redirecting T cell therapies (ORR: 28.6%, PFS2: 8.1 months). Even though this is a pooled analysis of different trials with different products and the patient profile is different for CAR-T and BiAbs, both were effective therapies for TCR myeloma. However, in our experience, while the PFS was similar with the two approaches, CAR-T therapy resulted in better OS, mainly because of the efficacy of BiAbs as rescue therapy. Our results highlight the importance of treatment sequence in real-word experience.

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.