Montheard, Sandrine

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.

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.

7526 Background: The TRANSFORM primary analysis (PA; NCT03575351) confirmed the superior efficacy of liso-cel vs SOC as 2L therapy in patients (pts) with primary refr or early rel LBCL (Abramson et al. Blood 2022). Response to first-line (1L) therapy (refr vs rel), which was a study randomization stratification factor, may influence future treatment response. Here, we present results for refr and rel LBCL subgroups from the TRANSFORM PA. Methods: TRANSFORM is a randomized phase 3 study of liso-cel vs SOC (salvage chemotherapy [CT] followed by high-dose CT [HDCT]/autologous SCT [ASCT]) in adults ≤ 75 y with LBCL primary refr to or rel ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy and eligible for HDCT/ASCT. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS); key secondary endpoints were CR rate, PFS, and OS. In this predefined subgroup analysis, refr was SD, PD, PR, or CR with rel < 3 mo after 1L therapy; rel was CR with rel ≥ 3 mo and ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Results: 92 pts were randomized to each arm. Most pts in the liso-cel and SOC arms had refr disease (73% and 76%, respectively; rel disease, 27% and 24%). Baseline characteristics in the refr and rel subgroups, respectively, were generally balanced: median LDH (U/L; liso-cel, 228.5 and 225; SOC, 259 and 259); median SPD (cm2; liso-cel, 11 and 12; SOC, 15.5 and 18); high-grade B-cell lymphoma (liso-cel, 27% and 16%; SOC, 27% and 9%); diffuse LBCL not otherwise specified (liso-cel, 58% and 56%; SOC, 49% and 73%). Consistent with the overall study population, EFS, CR rate, and PFS favored liso-cel vs SOC in both subgroups (Table). Safety was also consistent. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurological events (NE) were low in refr (1% and 4%) and rel (0 and 4%) subgroups, respectively, with no grade 4/5 CRS or NEs. Conclusions: In TRANSFORM, liso-cel showed benefits in EFS, PFS, and CR rate vs SOC irrespective of prior response to 1L therapy. As refr LBCL is historically difficult to treat, outcomes for liso-cel in this subgroup are encouraging. Clinical trial information: NCT03575351 . [Table: see text]

Abstract 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 &lt; .0001) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was NR for liso-cel vs 6.2 months for SOC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.400; P &lt; .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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract Background: Pts with previously treated R/R aggressive LBCL have compromised health-related QOL (HRQOL). Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, defined composition, 4-1BB CAR T cell product administered at equal target doses of CD8 + and CD4 + CAR + T cells. In a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351), a randomized, open-label, pivotal trial, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint of event-free survival and key secondary endpoints (complete response rate and progression-free survival) in adults with R/R LBCL after failure of first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy compared with SOC, with no new safety signals. Here we present results of the pt-reported outcomes (PRO) analysis from TRANSFORM. Methods: Adults (age ≤ 75 yrs) with R/R LBCL (≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy), who were eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), were randomized to receive either SOC (3 cycles of salvage chemotherapy [CT] and BEAM + ASCT for responding pts) or liso-cel after lymphodepletion. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in the SOC arm for pts who failed treatment. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire - 30 items (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Lymphoma Subscale (FACT-LymS) were administered at randomization (baseline) and on Days 29 (infusion of liso-cel or 2 cycles of salvage CT), 64 (1 mo post liso-cel or completion of CT), 126 (3 mos post liso-cel or 2 mos post ASCT), and Mo 6 and other prespecified timepoints up to Mo 36 or end of study. No PRO data were collected after crossover. The analysis was based on the PRO-evaluable population (pts with a baseline and ≥ 1 post-baseline assessment). Predefined thresholds determined clinically meaningful changes. Global health/QOL (GH/QOL), physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, pain, and FACT-LymS were the primary domains of interest based on their relevance to the study population and treatment. A linear mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis was performed to assess the between-treatment difference in overall least squares (LS) mean change from baseline for each primary domain, using data collected up to Day 126 for visits with a sample size per arm ≥ 10. Proportions of pts with meaningful change from baseline were assessed for each primary domain up to Mo 6. All analyses were descriptive only. Results: Of 184 randomized pts, 90 (49%) and 85 (46%), respectively, were included in the PRO-evaluable population for the EORTC QLQ-C30 (SOC vs liso-cel n=43 vs 47) and FACT-LymS (n=40 vs 45, respectively). The PRO assessment completion rate from baseline up to Mo 6 was ≥ 45%, which was lower than expected primarily due to operational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic but was comparable for both arms. In the MMRM analysis, the liso-cel arm had more favorable overall LS mean changes from baseline to Day 126 than the SOC arm in most of the EORTC QLQ-C30 domains and FACT-LymS. In particular, the between-treatment differences for cognitive functioning (−2.09 vs 2.21) and fatigue (3.75 vs −1.95) for SOC versus liso-cel, respectively, exceeded the prespecified minimal important difference threshold (Table); in those domains, the SOC arm deteriorated while the liso-cel arm improved. In individual-level analyses, the proportion of pts with meaningful improvement for fatigue and GH/QOL was higher, while deterioration was lower, in the liso-cel arm versus SOC arm from baseline up to Mo 6 (Figure). At Mo 6, a higher proportion of pts experienced worsened fatigue (71% vs 18%) and a lower proportion experienced improved fatigue (29% vs 47%) in the SOC arm compared with the liso-cel arm; for GH/QOL, a higher proportion of pts worsened (57% vs 18%) and lower proportion improved (14% vs 53%), respectively. For the other primary domains, the proportions of pts with improvement or deterioration favored liso-cel or were similar between arms. Conclusions: Compared with SOC, liso-cel showed favorable improvement in most primary PRO domains, particularly EORTC QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning and fatigue and more pts showed PRO improvements and fewer showed deterioration by Mo 6 with liso-cel. The results were achieved despite only responders remaining in the SOC arm after salvage CT. HRQOL was either improved or maintained after liso-cel treatment in pts with R/R LBCL after failure of 1L therapy. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy. Arnason: Juno/BMS: Honoraria. Glass: BMS: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Riemser: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Helios Klinik Berlin-Buch: Current Employment. Crotta: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Montheard: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Previtali: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Liu: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Braverman: BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Guo: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; UCB: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Evidera: Current Employment. Shi: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Kamdar: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Other; Genetech: Other; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy.