Mielke, Stephan

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 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.

Background: In 2015 the first B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) patient receiving CAR T-cell therapy in Europe was reported to the EBMT registry. Today, the EBMT registry counts with more than 9000 patients treated with CAR T-cell therapies across all indications. Here, on behalf of the GoCART coalition, we present the outcomes of the largest European cohort of B-ALL patients treated with autologous, second generation, CD19-targeted CAR T-cells to date. Methods: Adult and paediatric patients with B-ALL received treatment with CAR T-cell therapy using either academic or commercially available products in 40 centres across 17 different countries. Safety was retrospectively assessed as per ASCTC 2019 consensus grading and CTCAE, and efficacy as per NCCN guidelines. Relapse incidence was defined as haematological relapse or progression after CART with non-relapse mortality as competing event. Leukemia free survival (LFS) was defined as being alive without occurrence of relapse. Follow-up includes patients treated from 2016 to Dec 2023 until data cutoff in June 2024. Results: A total of 345 patients (173 adults and 172 pediatrics) received therapy from 2016 to 2023 with tisagenlecleucel (65.2%), varnimcabtagene autoleucel (25.8%), brexucabtagene autoleucel (5.5%), and others (3.5%). Median age at infusion was 18 yrs. (range, 1.1-78.2) and 41.7% were females. High-risk features were identified including cytogenetic/genomic high-risk as per ELN guidelines (33.8%), relapse after allo-HCT (57.7%), early relapse (<1 year) after prior allo-HCT (30.4%), ≥3 prior treatment lines (55.5%) including prior exposure (and refractoriness) to blinatumomab and inotuzumab in 27.3% (34%) and 28.8% (32.3%), respectively. Median time from diagnosis to CART infusion was 2.8 years (0.1-17.9). Median time from last relapse prior CART to infusion was 2 months (range, 0.9-38.4). Bridging therapy was administered in 86.4% (298) of patients based on high or low intensity chemotherapy (32.1% or 26.5%, respectively), inotuzumab-ozogamicin (13.4%), TKI (8.2%), involved-site therapy (intrathecal chemotherapy, radiotherapy, orchiectomy) (3.5%), and blinatumomab (2.6%), alone or in combination. Prior to infusion, 34.7% had more than 5% BM blast count, 16.3% had circulating blasts in PB, and 20.6% had extramedullary disease. Lymphodepletion was performed in all but one patient, based on fludarabine and cyclophosphamide regimens. The reverse Kaplan-Meier median follow-up was of 2.2 years. The incidence of any grade (and severe) CRS was 71.6% (14.5%), and for ICANS was 15.7% (7.6%). The cumulative incidence of MRD-negative CR at month +3 was 76.9% (71.9-81.1), followed by a 2-year overall survival of 64.6% (58.7-69.8), leukemia-free survival of 48% (42.1-53.7), and relapse incidence of 45.5% (39.6-51.2). Non-relapse mortality at 2 years was 6.5% (4-9.6), 2-year cumulative incidence of subsequent HSCT of 33.3% (28-38.7) and second CAR-T infusions of 12.4% (8.8-16.6). Allogeneic HSCT after CAR-T was performed in 113 cases including 67 (59.3%) HSCT-naïve patients, due to molecular or overt disease relapse (60.9%), and other non-relapse reasons including suboptimal CAR-T persistence/B-cell aplasia (19.1%), pre-CAR-T high-risk features (13.6%), second malignancies (1.8%), and others. Second CAR-T infusions were performed in 39 cases due to molecular or overt disease relapse (79.5%) or suboptimal CAR-T persistence/B-cell aplasia in the absence of relapse (20.5%). Conclusions: The results from this European study demonstrate that CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy is an effective treatment for patients with high-risk B-cell ALL, providing substantial leukemia-free survival and overall survival rates despite the high-risk nature of the patient population. The necessity for bridging therapies and subsequent consolidative approaches, such as HSCT and second CAR T infusions, underscores the complexity and tailored nature of managing R/R B-ALL. These findings support the continued use and further investigation of CAR T-cell therapy in diverse clinical settings, emphasizing the importance of post-infusion strategies to sustain long-term remission. This will provide deeper insights into the factors influencing outcomes and help refine treatment protocols to improve patient care.

Background: The prognosis of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory B ALL (r/r B-ALL) treated with CAR T-cells and receive a 2nd CART infusion is unknown. Few reports with limited numbers of patients suggest that 2nd CART infusion is feasible with questionable efficacy. This GoCART coalition registry study aimed at compiling data to investigate the indications, efficacy, and toxicity of CART2 infusion in pts with r/r B-ALL. Methods: This is a multicenter, retrospective registry study that included pediatric and adult patients with r/r B-ALL who received autologous CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy (CART1) and subsequently were treated with a second administration of CD19 and/or CD22-targeted CAR-T cell therapy (CART2) from 2017 to 2023. Baseline features, prior stem cell transplant (SCT), indications for CART2 and outcomes were collected. Relapse incidence (RI) was defined as overt recurrence, non-relapse mortality (NRM) as death without relapse occurrence, leukemia free survival (LFS) as being alive without occurrence of relapse and overall survival (OS) as being alive. RI and NRM were estimated using cumulative incidence function and OS and LFS Kaplan-Meier estimation. Results: Out of 345 pts who received CART1, 39 (2y cumulative incidence of second CART: 12.4% (95%CI: 8.8-16.6)) received CART2. Reasons for CART2 were overt relapse (n= 26; 66.7%), molecular relapse by measurable residual disease (MRD+) (n=5; 12.8%), and B-cell recovery (BCR) in the absence of relapse (n=8; 20.5%). Seventeen pts (43.6%) were female and median age at CART2 infusion was 19 yrs (range: 6.9-67.1), including 19 children and 20 adults. 74.4% of the pts had received a prior SCT, 25 pts (64%) before CART1, 2 (5.1%) only between CART1 and CART2, and 2 (5.1%) before CART1 and between CART1 and CART2. Among the 31 pts who received CART2 for relapse, this was CD19+ in 24 (92.3%), CD19- in 2 (7.7%), and unknown in 5. CART1 products were varnimcabtagene autoleucel (ARI-0001) (23), tisagenlecleucel (13), brexucabtagene autoleucel (1), and other experimental (2). All CART2 products targeted CD19 except 2 (1 CD22 and 1 dual CD19-CD22). Median time between CART1 and CART2 was 11.0 months. For patients who received CART2 for BCR, median time between CART1 and CART2 was shorter than for those who received it for relapse: 2.4 (IQR: 2.3-3.3) months vs. 12.4 (IQR:6.4-19.3) months. Regarding leukemic burden at the time of CART2 infusion, 19 pts (48.8%) were in overt relapse (14/19 with extramedullary disease, including 7 in CNS), 12 (30.1%) were in complete remission (CR) MRD+ and 8 (20.5%) CR MRD-. With a median follow-up time of 2.3 yrs [95% CI: 1.2-3.4], the 2-yr OS and LFS after CART2 were 47.1% [95% CI: 27.8-64.3] and 39.9% [95% CI: 24-55.3], respectively. 2-yr RI was 54.5% (95% CI: 36.5-69.4) and NRM was 5.6% (95% CI 1-16.8). 2-yr OS, LFS and RI for pts in CR at CART2 infusion irrespective to MRD were 76.1%, 63.3% and 25.6% while for those not in CR these outcomes were 17.7%, 15% and 85%, respectively (p= 0.007, 0.006 and 0.002). 2-yr LFS (71.4% [95% CI 25.8-92]) and RI (0%) was significantly better for pts receiving CART2 for BCR than in those who received it for relapse (31.6% [15.6-48.9] and 68.4% [46.7-82.8]; p= 0.036, p=0.002). Conclusion: This is a large registry study describing indications and outcome of CART2 in patients with r/r B-ALL. At 2-yrs after CART2, the LFS was of 39.9% and for patients receiving CART2 due to B-cell recovery was of 71.4%. These results show that CART2 is associated with low NRM and might be a bridge to SCT or other additional therapies. Updated results with data about subsequent therapies after CART2 will be presented at ASH meeting.

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.

Introduction: Despite the success of anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor T cells (CART19) in patients with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), an allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) might rescue patients with disease recurrence. However, in patients at high risk of relapse, indication and timing of HSCT are challenging. Whether waiting for detectable disease or proceeding to consolidative HSCT in remission, is still controversial. This GoCART Coalition registry study aimed at investigating the outcome of patients who received HSCT after CART19. Methods: We retrieved data from the EBMT registry on adults and children with B-ALL who received autologous CART19 from 2016 and 2023. Baseline, previous treatment, bridging therapy, CART19 therapy, B cell aplasia duration, outcome, disease status at follow-up were collected. Kaplan Meier estimates were used for overall survival (OS), leukemia-free survival (LFS) and non-relapse mortality (NRM) from date of HSCT, whereas cumulative incidence was used for relapse after HSCT. The relapse was defined as molecular or hematologic recurrence of the disease. Relapse and NRM were mutually competing events. Results: Of 345 patients (173 adults and 172 children) infused with CART19 (Tisagenlecleucel in 65.2%, Varnimcabtagene autoleucel 25.8%, brexucabtagene autoleucel 5.5%, and others 3.5%), 113 subsequently received an HSCT (37 adults and 76 children; median age 13.5 years, IQR 8.2-22.2) at a median of 6.2 months (3.7-11.8) after CART19 infusion. Median follow-up was 1.6 years (95%CI 1.1-1.9). Overall, 67/113 (59.3%) patients were transplant-naive (17 adults; 50 children). 78.2% received a myeloablative conditioning, 36.8% were grafted from a mismatched related donor. Most of the patients (64.2%) were transplanted in CR3 or more. Disease status at HSCT was relapsed disease for 9% of the patients, whereas among patients in CR with reported MRD 26/95 (27%) received HSCT with MRD positivity (MRD+). Among the patients with disease recurrence after CART19, 19/60 (32%) detected a CD19-negative clone. Indication for the subsequent HSCT was reported for 110 patients, as follow: (I) Rescue HSCT in 68 (62%) patients with molecular/morphological disease after CAR-T (including one patient with MDS post CAR-T); (II) Pre-emptive HSCT in 22 (20%) patients with B-cell aplasia loss with no signs of disease recurrence; (III) ConsolidativeHSCT in the 20 patients (18%) who were transplanted for the high risk of relapse, despite ongoing B cell aplasia and no disease recurrence. Median time elapsed between CART19 and HSCT was 9.5, 4.4 and 3.4 months in the three groups, respectively. The 2-yr OS was 71.1% (95%CI 59.8-79.7) and 2-yr LFS was 53.5% (41.9- 63.8), relapse incidence was 32.7% (22.4-43.5), while NRM was 11.6% (6.1-19.1). The 2-years LFS was 59.6% (45.2-71.4) vs 42% (19.2-63.4), for patients transplanted with negative or positive MRD, respectively. 5/11 patients transplanted with overt disease (including one with MDS) relapsed or died, the 6 survivors free of disease had follow-up inferior to 2 years. Children compared with adults showed better OS (76.8%, 62.1-86.4; 59.9%; 40.8-74.6; p=0.02), and better LFS (64.3%, vs. 36.4%; p= 0.02). Patients receiving a rescue HSCT for MRD+ or overt relapse had a significant lower LFS (43.6% and 33.2%), as compared to pre-emptive (77.3%) and consolidative HSCT (83.6%, p= 0.001). In univariate analysis, no significant differences in OS (74.5% vs 65.6%, p=0.32), LFS (54.3% vs 52.4%, p=0.75) and NRM (10.7% vs 12.9%, p=0.68) were reported for those patients having a previous HSCT before CART19. Conclusion: To the best of our knowledge this is the largest cohort of transplanted patients after CART19. In this “real-world” registry-based study we found that patients transplanted without disease recurrence had a better LFS, also accounting for MRD. For those who experienced molecular or overt relapse, achieving MRD negativity appeared to be relevant for a better outcome. The low NRM, with no differences between pre-transplanted and transplant naive patients, suggest that HSCT after CART19 is well tolerated, and represent a valid strategy to reduce the risk of relapse. As it remains unclear for which patients autologous CART19 cells remains a stand-alone treatment, future studies should focus on strategies for early identification of patients at higher risk of treatment failure.

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]