Ibrahimi, Sami

We report correlative circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analyses from TRANSFORM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03575351 ) evaluating lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus standard of care (salvage immunochemotherapy, high-dose chemotherapy, autologous stem cell transplantation [ASCT]) in second-line large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). ctDNA association with efficacy was investigated at predefined time points (random assignment, day 43, day 64, and day 126 [3 months after liso-cel, approximately 2 months after ASCT]) for 136 patients using ultrasensitive PhasED-Seq. ctDNA clearance (measurable residual disease [MRD] neg ) predicted longer event-free survival (EFS) at all time points in both arms, with significantly more liso-cel–treated patients achieving MRD neg . Liso-cel demonstrated superior outcomes versus ASCT, including longer EFS, progression-free survival (PFS), and duration of response among patients in complete response (CR) and MRD neg . ctDNA re-emergence in patients with CR after ASCT confirmed its potential in predicting relapse. MRD neg remained significantly associated with EFS after adjusting for positron emission tomography (PET) response, while interaction testing revealed a significant interaction between PET status and treatment arm for EFS. Liso-cel achieved deeper, more durable molecular clearance by ctDNA, consistent with superior EFS and PFS versus ASCT for second-line LBCL treatment. ctDNA-MRD provided prognostic value beyond PET, supporting its role as a complementary biomarker for treatment response and relapse prediction.

Abstract The phase 1/2 Intergroup study E4412 investigated checkpoint blockade with nivolumab (Nivo) and ipilimumab (Ipi) combined with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) in relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma. A total of 147 patients aged ≥12 years were randomized between BV/Nivo and BV/Ipi/Nivo; 132 patients were included in the primary efficacy analysis. The complete response (CR) rate, was 64.7% (52.2, 75.9) for BV/Nivo and 70.3% (57.6, 81.1) for BV/Ipi/Nivo (1-sided P = .29). The median survival follow-up was 38.0 months (interquartile range, 32.6-48.1). Progression-free survival (PFS) did not significantly differ between the 2 arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78, confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.57; 1-sided P = .24). Treatment-related grade 3+ toxicities in the adult cohort, excluding rash, were similar between both arms (38.5% BV/Nivo and 39.3% BV/Ipi/Nivo); there was a higher frequency of grade 3 rash with BV/Ipi/Nivo (24.6%) compared with BV/Nivo (9.2%). We compared PFS by stem cell transplantation (SCT) status in a planned before hoc comparison; 58 patients received SCT, and 36-month PFS (from SCT) was >90% for both arms. Sixty-six patients were progression free after the first scan and did not undergo SCT. The 36-month PFS was 73.0% (54.5, 85.0) for BV/Ipi/Nivo compared with 45.8% (26.3, 63.4) for BV/Nivo (HR, 0.45; CI, 0.19-1.08; 1-sided P = .03). The study did not meet its primary end point of superior CR rate for the triplet, but it supports the use of checkpoint antibody-drug conjugate induction prior to auto SCT, and there is an intriguing signal of disease control for patients wishing to defer or avoid SCT with the triplet of BV/Ipi/Nivo. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01896999.

Abstract Introduction: Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, 4-1BB CAR T cell product. TRANSFORM (NCT03575351) is a global, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study of liso-cel versus SOC as second-line therapy in adults with R/R LBCL. In the TRANSFORM study, liso-cel showed superior, more durable efficacy versus SOC, with a potential long-term survival benefit and a favorable safety profile, highlighting the curative potential of liso-cel for second-line R/R LBCL. Upon completion of TRANSFORM, patients who received liso-cel could enroll into a separate, long-term follow-up (LTFU) study (NCT03435796). Here, we report results after approximately 4 years of follow-up in patients from TRANSFORM who consented to the LTFU study. Methods The TRANSFORM study compared liso-cel versus SOC (chemotherapy [R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP] followed by high-dose chemotherapy [HDCT] + ASCT) in adults aged ≤ 75 years with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line therapy and eligible for ASCT. Patients in the liso-cel arm underwent lymphodepletion followed by liso-cel (100 × 106 CAR+ T cells). Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed for patients in the SOC arm. The LTFU study enrolled patients who received liso-cel and discontinued early or completed TRANSFORM; liso-cel was not administered during the LTFU study and subsequent therapies were administered at investigator discretion. Selected AEs considered related to liso-cel (malignancies, neurologic, hematologic, or rheumatologic/autoimmune disorders) and OS would be assessed at each visit (month 3 and then every 6 months from years 1 to 5, and then annually) for up to 15 years from liso-cel infusion until study withdrawal or death, whichever occurred first. OS for the combined study was defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause. PFS for the combined TRANSFORM and LTFU studies incorporated data from TRANSFORM, assessed by an independent review committee, and from LTFU, assessed by investigators, and was defined as the time from randomization to disease progression or death from any cause. For LTFU only, OS and PFS were measured from LTFU consent to event or censoring. In cases where the patient was censored at last assessment date (without receiving new therapy) in TRANSFORM and enrolled in LTFU, LTFU data were used. For patients from the liso-cel arm of TRANSFORM who did not enroll in the LTFU study, the data from TRANSFORM were considered (ie, either an event or censored) at their last adequate assessment date or before starting new therapy. Results are reported descriptively. Results In total, 184 patients were randomized in TRANSFORM (92 per arm); key demographics and baseline characteristics were previously reported (Abramson, et al. Blood 2023). The LTFU study enrolled 67 patients who received liso-cel (liso-cel arm, n = 43; crossover from SOC arm, n = 24). The median follow-up (range) for the liso-cel arm was 16.9 months (1.3–29.7) in the LTFU study and 40.1 months (2.2–61.9) combining the TRANSFORM and LTFU studies. The median follow-ups for OS and PFS for the liso-cel arm in the LTFU study were 17.1 (16.1–21.9) and 16.9 months (16.0–21.8), respectively. In patients from the LTFU study in the liso-cel arm (n = 43), median PFS and OS were both not reached (NR) with 95% CIs of NR–NR. The 24-month rates (95% CI) of PFS and OS were 94.7% (87.4–100.0) and 95.1% (88.4–100.0), respectively. In the 92 patients randomized to the liso-cel arm, using combined data from the TRANSFORM and LTFU studies, median (95% CI) PFS was NR (12.6–NR); 48-month PFS rate was 52.2% (41.5–62.8). Median (95% CI) OS was NR (NR–NR); 48-month OS rate was 61.5% (51.2–71.7). Safety results from the LTFU study in the liso-cel arm showed no new signals compared with previous reports from TRANSFORM. AEs of any grade occurred in 2 patients (hypogammaglobulinemia and dyspnea; n = 1 each), with no second primary malignancies or serious infections. AEs of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 1 patient (dyspnea). No AEs led to death.Conclusions: After a median follow-up of approximately 4 years combining data from the TRANSFORM and LTFU studies, liso-cel continued to demonstrate long-term clinical benefit with high PFS and OS rates in patients with second-line R/R LBCL. The safety profile of liso-cel continued to be manageable with no new safety signals observed during LTFU. These results further support liso-cel as an effective second-line treatment with curative potential for R/R LBCL.

Abstract Introduction: Liso-cel, an autologous, CD19-directed CAR T cell product, has demonstrated consistent efficacy in a broad population of pts with B-cell malignancies, including R/R LBCL. Its well-established safety profile has made OP delivery commonplace. This, combined with recent changes to postinfusion monitoring requirements, offers pts the potential for greater access to care. Here, we describe real-world safety and effectiveness outcomes for pts with R/R LBCL who received liso-cel as standard of care (SOC) therapy in the inpatient (IP) or OP setting. Methods: This was an observational study of pts in the US with R/R LBCL who received commercial liso-cel as second-line (2L) or later treatment (tx) in the IP or OP setting between 02/2021 and 02/2025 and had ≥1 postinfusion assessment reported in the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Safety outcomes included rates of AEs of special interest and nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Postinfusion hospitalizations in the OP group were also assessed. Effectiveness outcomes included ORR, CR rate, duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. All results are reported descriptively. Results: Of 1116 eligible pts, 34% (n=375) were intended for OP tx, as reported to the CIBMTR, including 82 of 195 (42%) pts who received liso-cel as 2L tx. Among pts treated in the IP vs OP setting, median (range) age was 71.5 y (21.5–91.2) and 69.8 y (25.0–86.1), respectively, and most pts were male (59% and 61%). Proportions of pts with high-grade B-cell lymphoma (16% and 12%), ≥2 extranodal involvement sites (26% and 26%), and secondary CNS involvement (5% and 4%) were similar for the IP and OP groups, respectively. In contrast, 48% vs 37% of pts in the IP vs OP groups, respectively, had elevated LDH before infusion and 10% vs 3% had ECOG PS ≥2. One or more comorbidities were reported for 72% and 65% (including cardiac, 36% and 32%; pulmonary, 30% and 26%; active infections requiring ongoing tx, 6% and 3%) of pts in the IP and OP groups, respectively. Median (range) number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (1–13) in the IP group and 3 (1–16) in the OP group. Use of bridging therapy was reported in 65% of the IP group and 62% of the OP group. Median (95% CI) follow-up for this study was 12.7 mo (12.5–13) in the IP group and 12.6 mo (12.4–12.8) in the OP group. Safety was similar in both settings; any-grade CRS was reported in 52% of IP vs 49% of OP setting pts, with low rates of grade 2 CRS (15% vs 11%) and grade ≥3 CRS (3% vs 2%) in both groups. Any-grade immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) rates were also similar in pts in the IP vs OP setting (28% vs 23%), with low rates of grade 2 ICANS (5% vs 4%) and grade ≥3 ICANS (10% vs 8%). Prolonged cytopenia (grade 4 thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia at 30 d after infusion) was reported in 12% and 14% in the IP and OP groups; clinically significant infections at any time after infusion occurred in 48% of IP and 42% of OP setting pts. In the IP and OP groups, 37% and 30% of pts died, most commonly due to PD (25% and 21%) and the NRM rates at 12 mo were 7.1 (95% CI, 5.2–9.4) and 4.1 (95% CI, 2.2–6.8). Among OP setting pts, 46% were not hospitalized after infusion; of those hospitalized after OP infusion, median (IQR) time to hospitalization was 5 d (3-8) and duration of stay was 5 d (3-9). Response rates were high in both the IP (ORR, 80% [95% CI, 77–83]; CR rate, 70% [95% CI, 66–73]) and OP setting (ORR, 83% [95% CI, 79–87]; CR rate, 74% [95% CI, 69–79]). At ~12 mo follow-up, median (95% CI) DOR was not reached (NR; NR–NR) in either group with 12-mo DOR rates of 59% (95% CI, 54–63) and 63% (95% CI, 56–69), respectively. Median (95% CI) PFS was 11.8 mo (8.8–NR) in the IP group vs NR (NR–NR) in the OP group, with 12-mo PFS rates of 49% (95% CI, 45–53) and 56% (95% CI, 50–61), respectively. Median (95% CI) OS was NR (NR–NR) in both groups with 12-mo OS rates of 65% (95% CI, 61–68) in the IP group and 74% (95% CI, 68–78) in the OP group. Conclusions: These results continue to demonstrate that one-time tx with liso-cel results in deep, clinically meaningful efficacy in the SOC setting across a broad population of pts with R/R LBCL. Despite the few differences reported in baseline characteristics, outcomes were consistent among pts treated in the IP and OP care settings. The well-established safety profile of liso-cel is conducive to OP tx, allowing ~50% of pts to remain out of the hospital postinfusion.

We report 3-year follow-up results from TRANSFORM comparing lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) versus standard of care (SOC) for second-line primary refractory/early relapsed (≤12 months) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Adults eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (N = 184) were randomly assigned 1:1 to liso-cel (100 × 10 6 chimeric antigen receptor–positive T cells) or SOC. Results are reported descriptively. With a median follow-up of 33.9 months, median (95% CI) event-free survival was 29.5 months (9.5 to not reached [NR]) for liso-cel versus 2.4 months (2.2 to 4.9) for SOC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.375; 95% CI, 0.259 to 0.542). Median progression-free survival was NR (12.6-NR) for liso-cel versus 6.2 months (4.3-8.6) for SOC (HR, 0.422; 95% CI, 0.279 to 0.639) with 36-month rates of 51% versus 26.5%. Median overall survival (OS) was NR for both arms (HR, 0.757; 95% CI, 0.481 to 1.191), with 66% of patients crossing over to receive liso-cel; 36-month OS rate was 63% for liso-cel versus 52% for SOC. OS HR (0.566 [95% CI, 0.359 to 0.895]) favored liso-cel when accounting for the treatment effect of crossover. Safety results were consistent with previous reports. At 3-year follow-up, liso-cel confirmed superior, more durable efficacy versus SOC with a favorable safety profile and no new safety signals. These data support liso-cel as an effective second-line treatment with curative potential for relapsed/refractory LBCL.

Background: ctDNA clearance after frontline DLBCL tx has shown strong prognostic value for favorable outcomes, with the potential to improve MRD-driven therapeutic strategies and establish MRD as a surrogate endpoint in future studies (Roschewski M, et al. Blood 2022; Goldstein J, et al. Blood 2023). However, further study is needed to evaluate the association of this noninvasive approach with efficacy outcomes after 2L LBCL tx. We previously reported ctDNA analysis after liso-cel infusion in TRANSFORM (NCT03575351; Stepan L, et al. Blood 2023;142[suppl 1]). Here, we describe the predictive value of pre-tx and on-tx ctDNA levels for durable clinical benefit (CR and event-free survival [EFS]) in both liso-cel and SOC arms from TRANSFORM (Kamdar M, et al. J Clin Oncol 2024), evaluating ctDNA as an earlier surrogate for conventional clinical outcomes. Methods: Baseline (prerandomization) and longitudinal ctDNA levels were assessed in randomized pts treated with liso-cel or SOC in TRANSFORM using the phased variant enrichment and detection sequencing assay (PhasED-Seq; Foresight Diagnostics). Phased variants were identified from baseline plasma samples for longitudinal ctDNA monitoring at multiple on-tx time points, as previously described (Stepan L, et al. Blood 2023;142[suppl 1]). Randomization was defined as study Day 1. Association of ctDNA levels with response per independent review committee using Lugano 2014 criteria and EFS was investigated at various predefined time points, including Day 43 (after 2 cycles of salvage immunochemotherapy for SOC; Day 15 after liso-cel infusion), Day 64 (after 3 cycles of salvage immunochemotherapy for SOC; 1 month after liso-cel infusion), and Day 126 (within 2 months after ASCT; 3 months after liso-cel infusion). To assess the surrogacy value of ctDNA, ctDNA-MRD dynamics and ctDNA clearance were investigated within both arms. Results: In pooled analyses combining the liso-cel and SOC arms, higher baseline ctDNA levels (above the median) were associated with shorter EFS (P = 0.05). Pts achieving Day 126 CR had substantial reductions in ctDNA burden vs baseline, while pts with PD or stable disease had persistently high ctDNA levels vs baseline. Achieving undetectable ctDNA at different time points was associated with significantly longer EFS in pooled analyses, observed as early as study visit Day 43, with the strongest association at Day 126. HR (95% CI) for inferior EFS was 3.0 (1.6-5.7) at Day 43, 3.8 (2.1-7.0) at Day 64, and 4.2 (2.3-7.7) at Day 126 in pts with detectable vs undetectable ctDNA. In the analysis by tx arm, consistent with the pooled analyses, ctDNA clearance was associated with EFS benefit at all measured time points with either liso-cel or SOC. Significantly more pts achieved undetectable ctDNA with liso-cel vs SOC during the study (39/63 [62%] vs 25/65 [38%], respectively; P = 0.013), consistent with superior EFS (primary endpoint) with liso-cel in TRANSFORM. All pts in the SOC arm with evaluable ctDNA at Day 126 (n = 28) had received high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT)/ASCT. However, pts with undetectable ctDNA in the liso-cel vs SOC arm had longer EFS at all predefined time points and had statistically longer EFS at Day 126 (SOC vs liso-cel: HR, 3.9 [95% CI, 1.4-10.6]), indicating a deeper and more durable response with liso-cel vs SOC. In pts with CR, ctDNA showed significant predictive value beyond the response assessment at all time points in the liso-cel arm with a HR (95% CI) of 3.8 (1.3-11.0) at Day 64 and 7.0 (2.0-24.3) at Day 126 for EFS in pts with detectable ctDNA vs undetectable ctDNA. Among pts in the SOC arm who experienced subsequent PD despite achieving CR (all received HDCT/ASCT) and undetectable ctDNA at Day 126, serial ctDNA assessment showed consistent reversion to detectable ctDNA at later time points. Conclusions: ctDNA data from TRANSFORM confirm the value of ctDNA as a biomarker for disease burden monitoring and early prediction of durable clinical benefit after 2L LBCL treatment. Furthermore, longitudinal ctDNA molecular response results agree with previously reported clinical efficacy data and confirm the superiority of liso-cel with deeper responses over the historical SOC in 2L LBCL. ctDNA may have a key role as a surrogate endpoint in future LBCL studies, including after CAR T cell therapies.

7013 Background: Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, 4-1BB CAR T cell product. In prespecified interim and primary analyses of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351), liso-cel showed significant improvements in efficacy vs SOC in pts with R/R LBCL. Here we report results after ~3-y FU. Methods: TRANSFORM is a randomized phase 3 study comparing liso-cel vs SOC (CT [R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP] then high-dose CT [HDCT] + ASCT) in adults aged ≤ 75 y with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after first-line therapy and eligible for ASCT. Liso-cel arm pts underwent lymphodepletion followed by liso-cel (100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells). Bridging therapy was allowed. SOC arm pts received 3 cycles of CT; responding pts proceeded to HDCT + ASCT. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed for SOC arm pts if criteria were met. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS) per independent review committee (IRC). Key secondary endpoints included CR rate and PFS per IRC, and OS. Endpoints were not statistically retested and are reported descriptively. Results: In total, 184 pts were randomized (92 per arm); baseline characteristics were reported (Abramson et al. Blood 2023). Median (range) FU was 33.9 mo (0.9–53.0). Median EFS, PFS, and duration of response (DOR) were longer for liso-cel vs SOC, similar to the primary analysis (Table). A total of 61 (66%) SOC arm pts crossed over to receive liso-cel. Median OS was not reached (NR) in either arm; 36-mo OS rates were numerically higher for liso-cel. Of 76 total deaths (liso-cel, n = 34; SOC, n = 42 [crossover pts, n = 33]), 10 occurred since the primary analysis (liso-cel, n = 6; SOC, n = 4 [all crossover pts]); most were due to disease progression or complications (n = 6). Safety results were consistent with the primary analysis. Cellular kinetics and B-cell aplasia will be presented. Conclusions: After median FU of 33.9 mo, liso-cel as 2L treatment in pts with primary refractory or early relapsed LBCL resulted in deepening of response and continued improvement in efficacy endpoints over SOC, confirming the ongoing benefit of liso-cel. Clinical trial information: NCT03575351 . [Table: see text]

Background: Relapsed/refractory (R/R) Classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) remains a significant clinical challenge. We hypothesized that using immune checkpoint blockade to activate the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, and concurrently targeting tumor cells with the CD30 targeting antibody-drug conjugate brentuximab vedotin (BV) could overcome tumor resistance. E4412 is an intergroup Phase 1/2 ECOG-ACRIN sponsored study of the combinations of BV, nivolumab (N), and ipilimumab (I) in patients with R/R cHL. Here we present the efficacy and safety data on the full adult cohort of patients treated in Phase 2 randomized between BV/N and BV/N/I. Methods: Patients with confirmed R/R cHL were randomized between the doublet of BV/N with BV 1.8mg/kg and N 3mg/kg and BV/N/I with I 1mg/kg. BV and N were administered every 3 weeks, and I every 12 weeks for up to 1 year for BV and up to 2 years for N and I. Results: One hundred twenty-six patients were enrolled and treated; 8 patients (4 from each arm) were excluded from efficacy analysis based on ineligibility. Patients were not heavily pretreated, 65% had one prior line of therapy and an additional 27% had two prior lines, and 8% had more than 2 prior lines. The median age was 34; 51% of patients were male. Sixteen patients had prior BV: 10 (BV/N arm) and 6 (BV/N/I). Response: One hundred eighteen patients are evaluable for response: 61 treated with BV/N and 57 with BV/N/I. With BV/N 37 of 61 (60.7%) of patients had a complete response (CR) compared to 38 of 57 (66.7%) with BV/N/I for a difference of 6.7% (p-value 0.31). Additionally, 17 (28%) with BV/N and 12 (21%) of patients treated with BN/N/I had a partial response (PR) for an overall response rate (ORR) of 88% in both arms. In a planned analysis of patients with prior treatment with BV the CR rate was 25% in BV/N arm (2 of 8) and 60% in BV/N/I arm (3 of 5). The median follow-up for progression free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and overall survival (OS) is 24.8 months and 33.7 months. The median PFS, duration of response and OS have not been reached for either arm with 24 months of follow-up ( Figure 1). In B/N 30 of 61 patients came off study to receive alternative treatments (primarily autologous stem cell transplant (SCT)) and in BV/N/I 23 of 57 patients did. Safety: Table 1 shows treatment-related Grade 3+ toxicity occurring in > 1 patient and adverse events (AE) of special interest. All 126 patients (118 eligible and 8 ineligible) are evaluable for safety. The rate of Grade 3+ treatment related toxicity is 43% (28/65) and 52% (32/61) for BV/N and BV/N/I, respectively. However, when rash is excluded the rate of treatment related toxicities is similar between the two arms 38.5% vs 39.3%. There was no grade 4 rash, and the rash was treatable in all cases with topical or oral steroids. There were no Grade 5 toxicities in either arm. Conclusion: In this randomized Phase 2 study comparing BV/N vs. BV/ N/I the difference in CR rate of 6.7% between the doublet and the triplet was not statistically significant. Additionally, the triplet had more grade 3 rash than the doublet, there was otherwise no significant difference in grade 3 or greater toxicity between the two arms. With a median follow-up of 24 months the PFS and DOR have not been reached for either arm, suggesting excellent disease control from both regimens. Differences in response for BV pre-treated patients between the two arms is intriguing especially as more patients are treated with BV in the frontline, but the sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions. Correlative studies are underway to elucidate a response vs. resistance signature, and biological understanding of differential benefit.