Plain language summary of the TRANSFORM study primary analysis results: liso-cell as a second treatment regimen for large B-cell lymphoma following failure of the first treatment regimen.

What is this summary about? People diagnosed with a disease called large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) may experience return, or early relapse, of their disease within the first year after receiving and responding to their first (first-line) treatment regimen. Others may have primary refractory disease, meaning that the disease either did not respond to first-line treatment at all or only responded for a very brief period. Second (second-line) treatment includes immunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT, which has the potential to cure LBCL. However, if the disease does not respond to immunotherapy, people cannot receive ASCT, and less than 30% of people are cured.Therefore, new second-line treatment options are required, such as CAR T cell therapy, which uses a person's own genetically engineered lymphocytes, also called T cells, to fight their lymphoma. In this article, we summarize the key results of the phase 3 TRANSFORM clinical study that tested if liso-cel, a CAR T cell treatment, can safely and effectively be used as a second-line treatment for people with early relapsed or primary refractory (relapsed/refractory) LBCL.A total of 184 adults with relapsed/refractory LBCL who were able to receive ASCT were randomly treated with either liso-cel or standard of care (SOC) as second-line treatment. SOC included immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT.What were the key takeaways? Almost all (97%) people in the liso-cel group completed treatment, whereas 53% of people in the SOC group did not complete treatment, mostly due to their disease not responding or relapsing, and therefore they were not able to receive ASCT. People who received liso-cel as a second-line treatment lived longer without the occurrence of an unfavorable medical event or worsening of the disease and had a better response to treatment than those who received SOC as second-line treatment. People who received liso-cel reported side effects that researchers considered to be manageable, and that were known to occur with CAR T cell treatment.What were the main conclusions reported by the researchers? Results from the TRANSFORM study support the use of liso-cel as a more effective second-line treatment compared with SOC that is safe for people with relapsed/refractory LBCL.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03575351 (TRANSFORM study) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: primary analysis of the phase 3 TRANSFORM study.

This global phase 3 study compared lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) with a standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy for primary refractory or early relapsed (≤12 months) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Adults eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT; N = 184) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to liso-cel (100 × 106 chimeric antigen receptor-positive T cells) or SOC (3 cycles of platinum-based immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT in responders). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). In this primary analysis with a 17.5-month median follow-up, median EFS was not reached (NR) for liso-cel vs 2.4 months for SOC. Complete response (CR) rate was 74% for liso-cel vs 43% for SOC (P < .0001) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was NR for liso-cel vs 6.2 months for SOC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.400; P < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was NR for liso-cel vs 29.9 months for SOC (HR = 0.724; P = .0987). When adjusted for crossover from SOC to liso-cel, 18-month OS rates were 73% for liso-cel and 54% for SOC (HR = 0.415). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events occurred in 1% and 4% of patients in the liso-cel arm, respectively (no grade 4 or 5 events). These data show significant improvements in EFS, CR rate, and PFS for liso-cel compared with SOC and support liso-cel as a preferred second-line treatment compared with SOC in patients with primary refractory or early relapsed LBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03575351.

Health-related quality of life with lisocabtagene maraleucel vs standard of care in relapsed or refractory LBCL.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) has shown promising efficacy in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). We present health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results from the TRANSFORM study, the first comparative analysis of liso-cel vs standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy in this population. Adults with LBCL refractory or relapsed ≤12 months after first-line therapy and eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation were randomized 1:1 to the liso-cel or SOC arms (3 cycles of immunochemotherapy in which responders proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation). HRQOL was assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - 30 items and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma subscale. Patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline assessment were analyzed (liso-cel, n = 47; SOC, n = 43). The proportion of patients with meaningful improvement in global health status/quality of life (QOL) was higher, whereas deterioration was lower in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm from day 126 to month 6. Mean change scores showed meaningful worsening in global health status/QOL at month 6, fatigue at day 29 and month 6, and pain at month 6 with SOC; mean scores for other domains were maintained or improved in both arms. Time to confirmed deterioration favored the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm in global health status/QOL (median: not reached vs 19.0 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.94). HRQOL was either improved or maintained from baseline in patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm as second-line treatment. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT0357531.

Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) primary refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line therapy are at high risk for poor outcomes with current standard of care, platinum-based salvage immunochemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an autologous, CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has previously demonstrated efficacy and manageable safety in third-line or later LBCL. In this Article, we report a prespecified interim analysis of liso-cel versus standard of care as second-line treatment for primary refractory or early relapsed (within 12 months after response to initial therapy) LBCL. METHODS: TRANSFORM is a global, phase 3 study, conducted in 47 sites in the USA, Europe, and Japan, comparing liso-cel with standard of care as second-line therapy in patients with primary refractory or early (≤12 months) relapsed LBCL. Adults aged 18-75 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or less, adequate organ function, PET-positive disease per Lugano 2014 criteria, and candidates for autologous HSCT were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of interactive response technology, to liso-cel (100 × 106 CAR+ T cells intravenously) or standard of care. Standard of care consisted of three cycles of salvage immunochemotherapy delivered intravenously-R-DHAP (rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, two infusions of cytarabine 2000 mg/m2 on day 2, and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1), R-ICE (rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1, ifosfamide 5000 mg/m2 on day 2, etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1-3, and carboplatin area under the curve 5 [maximum dose of 800 mg] on day 2), or R-GDP (rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1)-followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous HSCT in responders. Primary endpoint was event-free survival, with response assessments by an independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria. Efficacy was assessed per intention-to-treat (ie, all randomly assigned patients) and safety in patients who received any treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03575351, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Oct 23, 2018, and Dec 8, 2020, 232 patients were screened and 184 were assigned to the liso-cel (n=92) or standard of care (n=92) groups. At the data cutoff for this interim analysis, March 8, 2021, the median follow-up was 6·2 months (IQR 4·4-11·5). Median event-free survival was significantly improved in the liso-cel group (10·1 months [95% CI 6·1-not reached]) compared with the standard-of-care group (2·3 months [2·2-4·3]; stratified hazard ratio 0·35; 95% CI 0·23-0·53; stratified Cox proportional hazards model one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (74 [80%] of 92 patients in the liso-cel group vs 46 [51%] of 91 patients in the standard-of-care group), anaemia (45 [49%] vs 45 [49%]), thrombocytopenia (45 [49%] vs 58 [64%]), and prolonged cytopenia (40 [43%] vs three [3%]). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events, which are associated with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in one (1%) and four (4%) of 92 patients in the liso-cel group, respectively (no grade 4 or 5 events). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 44 (48%) patients in the liso-cel group and 44 (48%) in the standard-of-care group. No new liso-cel safety concerns were identified in the second-line setting. There were no treatment-related deaths in the liso-cel group and one treatment-related death due to sepsis in the standard-of-care group. INTERPRETATION: These results support liso-cel as a new second-line treatment recommendation in patients with early relapsed or refractory LBCL. FUNDING: Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

A randomized phase 2 trial of azacitidine with or without durvalumab as first-line therapy for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes.

Azacitidine-mediated hypomethylation promotes tumor cell immune recognition but may increase the expression of inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules. We conducted the first randomized phase 2 study of azacitidine plus the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab vs azacitidine monotherapy as first-line treatment for higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (HR-MDS). In all, 84 patients received 75 mg/m2 subcutaneous azacitidine (days 1-7 every 4 weeks) combined with 1500 mg intravenous durvalumab on day 1 every 4 weeks (Arm A) for at least 6 cycles or 75 mg/m² subcutaneous azacitidine alone (days 1-7 every 4 weeks) for at least 6 cycles (Arm B). After a median follow-up of 15.25 months, 8 patients in Arm A and 6 in Arm B remained on treatment. Patients in Arm A received a median of 7.9 treatment cycles and those in Arm B received a median of 7.0 treatment cycles with 73.7% and 65.9%, respectively, completing ≥4 cycles. The overall response rate (primary end point) was 61.9% in Arm A (26 of 42) and 47.6% in Arm B (20 of 42; P = .18), and median overall survival was 11.6 months (95% confidence interval, 9.5 months to not evaluable) vs 16.7 months (95% confidence interval, 9.8-23.5 months; P = .74). Durvalumab-related adverse events (AEs) were reported by 71.1% of patients; azacitidine-related AEs were reported by 82% (Arm A) and 81% (Arm B). Grade 3 or 4 hematologic AEs were reported in 89.5% (Arm A) vs 68.3% (Arm B) of patients. Patients with TP53 mutations tended to have a worse response than patients without these mutations. Azacitidine increased programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1 [CD274]) surface expression on bone marrow granulocytes and monocytes, but not blasts, in both arms. In summary, combining azacitidine with durvalumab in patients with HR-MDS was feasible but with more toxicities and without significant improvement in clinical outcomes over azacitidine alone. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02775903.

A randomized phase 2 trial of azacitidine with or without durvalumab as first-line therapy for older patients with AML.

Evidence suggests that combining immunotherapy with hypomethylating agents may enhance antitumor activity. This phase 2 study investigated the activity and safety of durvalumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor, combined with azacitidine for patients aged ≥65 years with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), including analyses to identify biomarkers of treatment response. Patients were randomized to first-line therapy with azacitidine 75 mg/m2 on days 1 through 7 with (Arm A, n = 64) or without (Arm B, n = 65) durvalumab 1500 mg on day 1 every 4 weeks. Overall response rate (complete response [CR] + CR with incomplete blood recovery) was similar in both arms (Arm A, 31.3%; Arm B, 35.4%), as were overall survival (Arm A, 13.0 months; Arm B, 14.4 months) and duration of response (Arm A, 24.6 weeks; Arm B, 51.7 weeks; P = .0765). No new safety signals emerged with combination treatment. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events were constipation (Arm A, 57.8%; Arm B, 53.2%) and thrombocytopenia (Arm A, 42.2%; Arm B, 45.2%). DNA methylation, mutational status, and PD-L1 expression were not associated with response to treatment. In this study, first-line combination therapy with durvalumab and azacitidine in older patients with AML was feasible but did not improve clinical efficacy compared with azacitidine alone. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02775903.

Critical review of oncology clinical trial design under non-proportional hazards.

In trials of novel immuno-oncology drugs, the proportional hazards (PH) assumption often does not hold for the primary time-to-event (TTE) efficacy endpoint, likely due to the unique mechanism of action of these drugs. In practice, when it is anticipated that PH may not hold for the TTE endpoint with respect to treatment, the sample size is often still calculated under the PH assumption, and the hazard ratio (HR) from the Cox model is still reported as the primary measure of the treatment effect. Sensitivity analyses of the TTE data using methods that are suitable under non-proportional hazards (non-PH) are commonly pre-planned. In cases where a substantial deviation from the PH assumption is likely, we suggest designing the trial, calculating the sample size and analyzing the data, using a suitable method that accounts for non-PH, after gaining alignment with regulatory authorities. In this comprehensive review article, we describe methods to design a randomized oncology trial, calculate the sample size, analyze the trial data and obtain summary measures of the treatment effect in the presence of non-PH. For each method, we provide examples of its use from the recent oncology trials literature. We also summarize in the Appendix some methods to conduct sensitivity analyses for overall survival (OS) when patients in a randomized trial switch or cross-over to the other treatment arm after disease progression on the initial treatment arm, and obtain an adjusted or weighted HR for OS in the presence of cross-over. This is an example of the treatment itself changing at a specific point in time - this cross-over may lead to a non-PH pattern of diminishing treatment effect.