Ladha, Abdullah

Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for adults with relapsed or refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). Blinatumomab is a CD19-directed bispecific T-cell engager that is also approved for r/r B-ALL, and often used as early salvage therapy. Data in the pediatric/AYA population suggest that patients who did not respond to blinatumomab may have inferior outcomes to CD19-directed CAR-T products compared to those who have achieved a response to blinatumomab or were blinatumomab-naïve (Myers et al. J Clin Oncol 2022). In this study, we evaluate the response to blinatumomab and subsequent response to brexu-cel in adults with r/r B-ALL. Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 25 centers across the U.S. as part of the real-world outcomes collaborative study of CAR-T in B-ALL (ROCCA). Consecutive patients treated with brexu-cel from 2021 to 2023 were categorized by blinatumomab exposure status. Those exposed were separated into “blinatumomab responders” (B-R), defined as patients achieving a CR/CRi in response to any number of cycles of blinatumomab, and “non-responders” (B-NR). Each cohort was compared for outcomes of interest. The primary outcome was CR/CRi rate at day 28 following brexu-cel administration. Secondary outcomes were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Survival outcomes were calculated from day of brexu-cel infusion and were not censored for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation or maintenance therapy. All living patients were censored at data cutoff on June 30, 2023. Survival comparisons were made by log rank test. Results: Among 152 patients who received brexu-cel, the median follow-up time was 8.4 months. Eighty-eight (57%) of 152 r/r B-ALL brexu-cel recipients had received blinatumomab prior to apheresis. The median number of pre-apheresis blinatumomab cycles was 2 (range 1-12). The baseline characteristics of B-R, B-NR, and blinatumomab-naïve (B-NV) patients were similar, including pre-apheresis disease burden and receipt of maintenance therapy following brexu-cel infusion (Table 1). Seventy percent (N= 62) of the blinatumomab-exposed patients were B-R, while 30% (N=26) were B-NR. Rates of CR/CRi at day 28 following brexu-cel infusion were similar between B-R, B-NR, and B-NV patients (79% vs 84% vs 78%, respectively). Most of these remissions were negative for measurable residual disease (MRD), with similar MRD negativity rates in the three groups (table 2). 1-year DOR and PFS were significantly higher in the B-NV group compared to B-R or B-NR (77% vs 49% vs 50%, p<.0001; 60% vs 37% vs 30%, p<.0001). B-NV and B-R had better 1-year survival compared to B-NR (71% vs 65% vs 32%, p<.0001). There were more CD19-negative relapses following brexu-cel in B-NR (29%) and B-R (18%) compared to B-NV patients (8%), although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Brexu-cel induced deep responses in a majority of adults with r/r B-ALL, irrespective of prior exposure or response to blinatumomab. Similar to data published by the pediatric CAR-T cell groups, our data draw speculation that adult patients who did not respond to blinatumomab experience shorter overall survival following brexu-cel compared to those who responded to or did not receive blinatumomab. This should be confirmed in a larger, prospective clinical trial. Because this analysis could not account for patients who achieved durable remission after blinatumomab, these differences may not reflect superiority of sequencing brexu-cel before blinatumomab. The higher number of CD19-negative relapses in the blinatumomab-exposed cohort add to the interest in pursuing strategies to address antigen escape following CAR-T cell therapy directed against a previously targeted antigen.

Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). Bridging therapy, defined as anti-leukemia therapy given between apheresis and lymphodepleting chemotherapy, was permitted on the pivotal ZUMA-3 trial. The optimal bridging therapy is unknown in this setting. Here we report patient and disease characteristics in those receiving bridging therapies prior to brexu-cel and the impact of bridging on clinical outcomes in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results: ROCCA includes 25 US institutions contributing retrospective data from 152 B-ALL patients treated with standard of care brexu-cel between 2021-2023. Ninety-nine patients (65%) received bridging therapy, while 53 patients (35%) received no bridging therapy. Bridging therapy consisted of cytotoxic chemotherapy ( n=65, 66%), immunotherapy ( n=26, 26%; 23 inotuzumab, 3 blinatumomab), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) ( n=20, 20%; 16 ponatinib), steroids only ( n=10, 10%), and intrathecal chemotherapy ( n=22, 22%). The median age of the cohort was 46 (IQR 32-61). Patients were heavily pre-treated with a median of 4 prior lines of therapy. The median days from apheresis to infusion was 33 (IQR 26-42). 119 patients had known pre-apheresis blast counts; the bridging group had higher pre-apheresis blast burden, with 21 of 76 patients (28%) having ≥ 50% blasts compared to only 5 of 43 patients (12%) in the no bridging group ( p=0.02). In addition, more patients who received bridging had pre-apheresis extramedullary disease (32% vs. 15%, p=0.02). All other baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups (Table 1). Fifty-four (54%) patients had response assessment after bridging therapy and prior to brexu-cel infusion. In patients who received inotuzumab for pre-apheresis active disease, defined as ≥ 5% blasts, 6 of 13 (46%) who had post-bridging assessment achieved a complete response (CR; 5 measurable residual disease (MRD)+, 1 MRD-), with a mean proportional reduction in blast burden of 46% from baseline. In contrast, after chemotherapy bridging, only 2 of 16 patients (13%) with pre-apheresis active disease had a CR. Patients receiving chemotherapy bridging had a mean proportional increase in blast burden of 4.4%. In recipients of TKI bridging, 2 of 4 patients (50%) with pre-apheresis active disease had a CR. Compared to no bridging, patients in the bridging group had similar rates of grade 3 or 4 CRS (9% bridging vs. 8% no bridging, p=0.73) and grade 3 or 4 ICANS (34% vs. 26%, p=0.32). In univariate analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in day 28 response with 63 patients (72%) achieving MRD- complete response in the bridging group as compared to 36 patients (78%) in the no bridging group ( p=0.60). Non-relapse mortality was similar between the two groups (17% bridging vs. 9% no bridging, p=0.20). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were superior in the no bridging group: 1-year OS 74.7% vs 56.8% (log-rank p=0.04), and 1-year PFS 57.3% vs 41.7% (log-rank p=0.04). In a multivariate analysis stratified by bridging and pre-apheresis disease burden, patients with pre-apheresis blasts ≥ 5% and bridging had worse survival than ≥ 5% blasts and no bridging: 1-year OS 45.3% vs. 87.5% and 1-year PFS 27.7% vs. 64.3% (Figure 1). However, patients with < 5% blasts had similar survival regardless of bridging. Conclusions: In our real-world analysis, adults with R/R B-ALL receiving bridging therapy had a higher disease burden at baseline. Despite greater baseline disease, there were no significant differences in toxicity and day 28 response in those receiving bridging therapy vs. not. While survival was inferior in patients with pre-apheresis active disease who received bridging, this may be confounded by the degree of tumor burden. In patients with < 5% blasts pre-apheresis, bridging did not impact survival. Furthermore, inotuzumab bridging demonstrated the most significant disease debulking. However, the comparisons in this study are limited by the variability in practice for post-bridging disease reassessment and the small proportion of patients with active disease who did not receive bridging. A more uniform approach to peri-CAR disease assessment would enable more robust study of optimal bridging strategies.