Hunter, Bradley D.

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.

Introduction: In Cohorts 1+2 of the ZUMA-1 Phase 1/2 study of axi-cel in R/R LBCL, 11% and 31% of patients (pts) experienced Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or neurologic evenets), respectively. To minimize the toxicities seen with axi-cel, a safety management cohort, Cohort 6 (N=40), was added to evaluate whether prophylactic (ppx) corticosteroids (CS) could decrease grade ≥ 3 CRS or ICANS. The 2-year update of ZUMA-1 Cohort 6 showed no grade ≥3 CRS and 15% grade ≥3 ICANS without any difference in objective response rate (ORR) or complete response rate (CR) when compared to cohorts 1+2 (Oluwole Blood 2022). The FDA had previously approved an update to the prescribing information for axi-cel to include use of ppx CS across all approved indications in January 2022. However, ppx CS is not a mandatory standard treatment and we sought to establish the clinical outcomes in the real-world practice. Methods: To assess the clinical outcomes of pts receiving ppx CS, we conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis of pts with R/R LBCL who were treated with axi-cel since the FDA approval of ppx CS in January 2022. Baseline characteristics, toxicities, and efficacy were compared between the no ppx and ppx CS groups. CRS and ICANS were graded based on ASTCT 2019 guidelines. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as time from axi-cel infusion to progression, re-treatment, or death. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from axi-cel infusion to death due to any cause. Results: A total of 66 pts at 5 centers received axi-cel between Jan 31, 2022, and June 20, 2023. Thirty-five (52%) pts received ppx CS, with a median age of 63 years (26-85 years). By histology, 75% (n=50) of the pts had DLBCL, 13.6% (n=9) had high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL), 9.1% (n=6) had transformed follicular lymphoma (TFL) and 1.5% (n=1) primary mediastinal LBCL (PMBCL). 59% of the pts (n=37) had IPI >2 and 66% (n=43) had stage III/IV disease. The baseline characteristics at the time of apheresis are shown in Table 1 and were comparable between the 2 groups, except for more HGBL, fewer prior lines of therapy and longer median time from apheresis to axi-cel infusion in the ppx CS group. Among the entire cohort, only 37% (n=25) met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria at the time of lymphodepletion, and 67% (n=44) needed bridging therapy. Any grade CRS occurred in 88% (n=58) of the pts, with grade ≥2 CRS in 38% (n=25). Any grade ICANS occurred in 55% (n=37) of the pts, with grade ≥2 ICANS in 41% (n=27). Any grade ICANS was significantly lower in the ppx CS group than the no ppx group (45.7% vs 65.5%). The rates of any grade CRS, grade ≥2 CRS, grade ≥2 ICANS, the median time to CRS onset, ICANS onset, CRS duration, and ICANS duration were comparable between the 2 groups. Tocilizumab and steroids use was similar between two groups with a trend towards less ICU admission in patients in the ppx CS group. Overall, 14 (21%) pts developed infectious complications within 30 days of axi-cel infusion. The day 30 ORR was 84% and was comparable between the 2 groups (77% in the ppx group vs 93% in the no ppx group). The CR was 45.7% in ppx CS group compared to 65.5% in no ppx group. At a median follow up of 219 days (27-1178), 37 (56.1%) pts had progressed and 25 (37.9%) pts had died. The number of days to progress was significantly lower in the ppx CS arm. The median EFS and OS were not significant between the 2 groups. Conclusions: This multicenter retrospective study showed that the efficacy of treatment with axi-cel in R/R LBCL did not decrease with the use of ppx CS. No significant differences in efficacy or CAR-T-associated toxicities were noted in the 2 groups, potentially due to selective use with patients at presumed higher risk of severe CRS and ICANS. A larger dataset and longer follow-up is needed for risk-stratified analysis and the study is ongoing.