Stepan, Lara

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.

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]

Abstract Background: Pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after first-line (1L) therapy may have poor outcomes with SOC, including salvage CT and ASCT, which underscores a critical unmet need. 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 the TRANSCEND NHL 001 study (NCT02631044) in pts with R/R LBCL (≥ 2 prior lines of therapy), liso-cel treatment resulted in an ORR of 73% (CR rate, 53%), 2% grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and 10% grade ≥ 3 neurological events (NE) (Abramson et al. Lancet 2020). Here we present a prespecified interim analysis of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351; SOC vs liso-cel as 2L therapy in pts with R/R LBCL). Methods: TRANSFORM is a pivotal, global, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing efficacy and safety of SOC (Arm A; R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP per investigator choice followed by BEAM + ASCT) vs liso-cel (Arm B). Pts were adults (aged ≤ 75 years), eligible for ASCT, and with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Key inclusion criteria were ECOG PS ≤ 1 and adequate organ function (LVEF ≥ 40%; serum CrCl > 45 mL/min); pts with secondary CNS lymphoma were allowed. Key exclusion criteria were prior gene or anti-CD19-targeted therapy, and active infection. Pts in Arm A were to receive 3 cycles of CT. Responding pts (CR or PR) were to proceed to BEAM + ASCT. Pts in Arm B were to undergo lymphodepletion with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide followed by liso-cel at a target dose of 100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells. Bridging therapy with an Arm A CT regimen was allowed. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed in Arm A for pts not achieving CR or PR after 3 cycles of CT or not in CR after ASCT, or demonstrating PD at any time. Primary endpoint is event-free survival (EFS) based on independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria, defined as time from randomization to death from any cause, PD, failure to achieve CR or PR by 9 weeks after randomization, or start of new antineoplastic therapy, whichever occurred first. Key secondary endpoints included in the testing strategy are CR rate, PFS, and OS. P value significance threshold for endpoints to reject the null hypothesis was ≤ 0.012. Results: A total of 184 pts were randomized, with 92 pts in each arm. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between both arms (Table). Of 91 treated pts in Arm A (1 pt withdrew consent), 43 received BEAM + ASCT, of which 28 achieved CR with CT. Fifty pts crossed over to receive liso-cel. In Arm B, 90 pts received liso-cel infusion; 58 pts (63%) received bridging therapy. Two Arm B pts were not infused (1 each due to manufacturing failure and rapid progression). Median EFS and PFS were significantly longer, and CR rate was significantly improved for Arm B vs Arm A. For Arms A and B, respectively, median EFS was 2.3 vs 10.1 mo (HR, 0.349; P < 0.0001), median PFS was 5.7 vs 14.8 mo (HR, 0.406; P = 0.0001), and CR rate was 39% vs 66% (P < 0.0001). OS data were immature at the time of this analysis with a median follow-up of 6.2 mo (range, 0.9-20.0), but a numerical trend favored Arm B (HR, 0.509; 95% CI, 0.258-1.004; P = 0.0257). Cellular kinetics in Arm B showed a median t max of 10 d (range, 6‒22). No new liso-cel safety signals were detected in the 2L setting. In Arm B, any-grade CRS was reported in 49% of pts, with grade 1 in 37% and grade 2 in 11%. Only 1 pt had grade 3 CRS (onset at Day 9, which resolved in 2 days). Any-grade NEs were reported in 12% of pts and were also primarily low grade (grade 3, 4%). No grade 4 or 5 CRS or NEs were reported. In Arm B, 24% of pts received tocilizumab, 17% received corticosteroids, and none received vasopressors. The most common TEAEs in both arms were cytopenias. Prolonged cytopenias in Arm B (ie, grade ≥ 3 at 35 d after infusion) were reported in 43% of pts; the majority recovered within 2 mo after infusion. Conclusions: In the TRANSFORM study, liso-cel demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in the primary endpoint, EFS, as well as in key secondary efficacy endpoints (CR rate and PFS) compared with SOC as 2L therapy in pts with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after 1L therapy. Safety results in the 2L setting were consistent with the liso-cel safety profile in 3L or later LBCL, and no new safety concerns were identified. Liso-cel improved outcomes vs SOC and exhibited a favorable safety profile, providing support for liso-cel as a potential new SOC for 2L treatment in pts with R/R LBCL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Kamdar: SeaGen: Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene: Other; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy; Genetech: Other; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: 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. Bachanova: KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Ibrahimi: Karyopharm Theraputics: Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months. Mielke: Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Mutsaers: BMS: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri: Kite: Other: Advisory Boards; Amgen: Other: Advisory Boards; Pharmacyclics: Other: Advisory Boards; BMS: Other: Advisory Boards; Celgene: Other: Advisory Boards; Incyte: Other: Advisory Boards; AbbVie: Other: Advisory Boards; Gilead: Other: Advisory Boards; Epyzime: Other: Advisory Boards. Izutsu: Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirin: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Huya Biosciences: Research Funding; Genmab: Honoraria, Research Funding; Fuji Film Toyama Chemical: Honoraria; Eisai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Allergan Japan: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Ono Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Solasia: Research Funding; Symbio: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Yakult: Research Funding. Morschhauser: Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Epizyme: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy; AstraZenenca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genmab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy. Maloney: Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; A2 Biotherapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Umoja: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; MorphoSys: Honoraria; Juno therapeutics: Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Navan Technologies: Honoraria, Other: Stock options; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Research funding was paid to my institution, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other: Rights to royalties from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center for patents licensed to Juno Therapeutics/Bristol Myers Squibb. 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. Stepan: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ogasawara: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Mack: Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Abramson: Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. OffLabel Disclosure: Liso-cel is a CAR T cell therapy approved for use in the third line for R/R LBCL. This trial reports data from the pivotal trial in the second line.