Citations

Introduction: CAR-T therapy is the standard of care for pts with relapsed LBCL as early as in the second line in those with early relapse or with primary refractory disease. In practice, pts who are intended to receive CAR-T, commonly require interim therapy before leukapheresis, wherein a small fraction may achieve a complete remission (CR). Having chemosensitive disease, these pts can be considered for auto-HCT. Also, there are reports indicating the efficacy of CAR-T therapy in CR pts (Strati et al., Haematologica, 2023; Wudhikarn et al., Blood Adv, 2022). We compared the outcome of pts with LBCL who received CAR-T vs. auto-HCT while in a CR. Methods: Pts aged 18-75 years with DLBCL or primary mediastinal lymphoma who received CAR-T (between 2018-2021) or auto-HCT (between 2015-2021) while in a CR by PET or CT were included in this analysis using the data from the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) registry. Primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Treatment-related mortality (TRM) and relapse rate were among the secondary endpoints. Results: We identified 360 pts with LBCL who were in a CR before receiving CAR-T (n=79, tisa-cel 53%, axi-cel 46%, and liso-cel 1%) or auto-HCT (n=281). Median follow-up was 24.7 months (range 3.3-49.4) for the CAR-T cohort and 49.7 months (range 3.0-95.4) for the auto-HCT cohort. Selected baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. CRs were confirmed by PET scan in 90% of CAR-T pts and 99.6% of auto-CAR-T pts (p < 0.01). The most common lymphodepletion regimen for CAR-T was Cy/Flu (82.3%) and the most common conditioning regimen for auto-HCT was BEAM (77.6%). Thirty-seven (13.2%) of auto-HCT pts had a later CAR-T but no pts from the CAR-T cohort had subsequent auto-HCT. In univariate analysis, treatment with CAR-T was associated with a higher rate of relapse at 2 years (48% vs. 27.8%; p < 0.001), a lower rate of 2-year PFS (47.8% vs. 66.2%; p < 0.001) and lower 2-year OS (65.6% vs. 78.9%; p=0.037). There was no difference in rates of 2-year TRM (4.1% vs. 5.9%; p=0.673). Similarly, focusing on patients with early (12 months) treatment failure (CAR-T =57 and auto-HCT=163), treatment with CAR-T was associated with a higher 2-year relapse rate (45.9% vs. 22.8%; p <0.001) and an inferior 2-year PFS (48.3% vs.70.9%.; p <0.001) compared to auto-HCT (figure-2) while there was no difference in 2-year OS or TRM. In the multivariable analysis of outcomes, treatment with CAR-T was associated with higher risk of relapse (HR 2.18; p < 0.0001) and an inferior PFS (HR 1.83; p=0.0011) compared to auto-HCT. There was no difference in the risk of TRM (HR 0.59; p=0.36) or OS (HR 1.44; p=0.12). Conclusions: In pts with relapsed LBCL who achieve a CR, treatment with auto-HCT is associated with a lower relapse rate and an improved PFS compared to CAR-T, including in pts with early treatment failure (within 12 months). These results are in line with previously reported improved clinical outcomes with auto-HCT compared to CAR-T in pts in partial remission (Shadman et al. Blood, 2022). The data support utilization of auto-HCT in pts with relapsed LBCL achieving a CR.

Background: For patients with relapsed and refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), the standard of care remains salvage therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) for responding patients. Historical data suggest 40% of patients may relapse after ASCT, and these patients have generally a poor median overall survival (OS) of less than 2 years (Moskowitz et al., Br J Haematol. 2009;146(2):158-62). However, since these reports, the treatment landscape of R/R HL has dramatically improved, most notably with the introduction of two novel therapies, brentuximab vedotin (BV) and anti-PD1 agents. To refine our understanding of clinical outcomes in this context, we characterized patients who relapsed after ASCT in the modern era. Methods: We used a multicenter retrospective patient database at 5 transplant centers in the United States to identify patients with HL aged ≥ 12 years at diagnosis who had received ASCT on or after 1/1/2010. The primary objective was to determine the median OS for patients who relapsed after ASCT (post-ASCT-relapse OS), defining survival as the time from relapse after ASCT to subsequent death from any cause. Univariable Cox regression was performed to evaluate the impact of various factors on post-ASCT OS. Outcomes by era were evaluated using three different eras based on approval dates of novel agents: (1) pre-BV approval (pre-7/31/2011), (2) post-BV approval (8/1/2011-4/30/2016), (3) post-anti-PD1 approval (5/1/16-present). Results: A total of 215 patients were identified. The median age at ASCT was 34. Before ASCT, 128 patients (62%) had no exposure to novel agents, 76 patients (35%) had received BV and no anti-PD-1 therapy, and 11 patients (5.1%) had received anti-PD-1 therapy with or without BV. Conditioning was mostly with BEAM (59%) or CBV (32%). The median time to relapse after ASCT was 6 months (range: 1-109 months). Nearly half all relapses (47%) occurred within 6 months of ASCT. Only 14% of relapses occurred after 1 year. Among 126 patients with available treatment information, the median number of post-ASCT lines of therapy was 2 (IQR: 1, 4). Therapy for post-ASCT relapse included BV and no anti-PD-1 therapy in 41 patients (29%), anti-PD-1 therapy with or without BV for 70 patients (50%), and no novel agents for only 15 patients (11%). The median followup time from the date of ASCT among survivors was 5.0 (IQR: 2.8, 7.8) years. The median post-ASCT-relapse OS was not reached ( Figure 1). The 2- and 5-year post-ASCT-relapse OS were 75% (95% CI: 70%-81%) and 59% (95% CI: 53%-67%), respectively. On univariable Cox regression for post-ASCT-relapse OS ( Table 1), time to relapse greater than 6 (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.35-0.85) or 12 months (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96) were significantly associated with improved post-ASCT-relapse OS. Increasing age at relapse was associated with worse OS (HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.07). Receipt of a novel agent (compared to chemotherapy alone) as the first salvage regimen for post-ASCT relapse was associated with improved post-ASCT OS (BV: HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.96; anti-PD-1: HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-1.08). Outcomes improved over time as regulatory approvals for novel agents occurred (post-BV-approval: HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39-1.24; post-anti-PD-1 approval: HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.91). Conclusion: We show prolonged overall survival post-ASCT relapse compared to historical data likely due to the introduction of BV and anti-PD1 agents. This report represents one of the largest datasets of post-ASCT relapse in cHL, and this data should serve as an updated benchmark for future evaluations.

Background: Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), an autologous chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 94% and a complete response (CR) rate of 79% in patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) follicular lymphoma (FL) after two or more prior lines of therapy in the ZUMA-5 trial ( Jacobson et al. Lancet Oncol. 2022). Since its FDA approval in March 2021, there has been little evidence on comparative effectiveness (CE) studies of axi-cel vs standard-of-care (SoC), except ones using ZUMA-5 and historical SCHOLAR-5 data (eg, Ghione et al. Blood. 2022). This study was aimed to address this evidence gap in CE of axi-cel vs SoC used to treat r/r FL in real-world settings. Methods: The two data sources in this study were patients who received commercial axi-cel between March 2021 and May 2023 from the CIBMTR and patients who received historical SoC (eg, chemotherapy, anti-CD20 mAb + chemotherapy, immunomodulatory imide drugs) between July 2014 and December 2020 from SCHOLAR-5, which served as an external control of ZUMA-5 trial. The index date was defined as the initiation date of either the infusion for axi-cel patients or the last eligible systemic therapy for SoC patients. Patients were included if they were age ≥ 18, had documented r/r FL with histological grade 1, 2 or 3a, and received at least 2 prior lines of therapy at the index. Patients were excluded if they had transformed diffused large B-cell lymphoma, central nervous system involvement, prior receipt of CAR T or other non-CAR T cellular therapies or allogeneic stem cell transplant, or no post-index information on outcomes. Four effectiveness outcomes were ORR, CR rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Imbalance in observed prognostic risk factors between the two was adjusted via a propensity score analysis using the standard mortality ratio weighting (SMRW). The primary analyses included weighted univariable analysis and multivariable logistic (ORR and CR rate) or Cox (PFS and OS) regressions that were adjusted for the covariates after the SMRW. A sub-analysis of patients age ≥ 65 was conducted using the same methods as the primary analyses. Results: The unweighted study cohort included 376 patients, in which 256 (68%) received axi-cel . Thepatients who received axi-cel were more likely to be younger (median age 61 for axi-cel vs 67 for SoC), have grade 3a FL (37% vs 12%), received 3 or more prior lines of therapy (83% vs 58%), or remained refractory to the last prior therapy (79% vs 73%) vs those who received SoC. The imbalance in the observed prognostic risk factors was mitigated via the SMRW. The weighted univariable analysis, in which the sample size by treatment reflected the SMRW, is shown in Table 1. In patients of all ages, ORR was 92% in axi-cel vs 67% in SoC, and CR rate was 84% vs 37%. Because of varying follow-up lengths by treatment (median 7 months for axi-cel and 37 months for SoC), survival outcomes were reported at month 6, at which time PFS rate was 88% in axi-cel vs 64% in SoC and OS rate was 97% vs 85%. The corresponding proportions for patients age ≥ 65 were similar to those reported for patients of all ages. In the weighted multivariable regressions, axi-cel was associated with statistically significantly better outcomes by all 4 effectiveness measures vs SoC (Table 1). Specifically, in patients of all ages, the odds ratios for axi-cel were 4.93 (95% CI, 2.35−10.34) for ORR and 16.72 (95% CI, 7.03−39.73) for CR rate, and the hazard ratios for axi-cel were 0.41 (95% CI, 0.22−0.77) for PFS and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.06−0.34) for OS. Similar to the patients of all ages in the primary analyses, patients age ≥ 65 in the sub-analysis also demonstrated improved outcomes associated with axi-cel (Figure 1). Conclusions: This study showed that patients with r/r FL after two or more prior lines of therapy treated with axi-cel experienced better outcomes compared with patients treated with SoC, and that older patients also benefited significantly from axi-cel. These findings suggest that axi-cel addresses an important unmet medical need in patients with r/r FL. Future research should include longer follow-up data on outcomes of axi-cel and CE of axi-cel vs other contemporary SoC therapies.

Background: Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) LBCL. ZUMA-12 (NCT03761056) is a Phase 2, multicenter, single-arm study of axi-cel as part of first-line treatment in patients with high-risk LBCL. In the primary efficacy analysis (n=37; median follow-up of 15.9 months), axi-cel demonstrated a high rate of investigator-assessed complete response (CR; 78%; 95% CI, 62-90) and an 89% objective response rate (ORR; 95% CI, 75-97). Axi-cel also had a manageable safety profile, with no new safety signals observed in the first-line setting (Neelapu et al. Nat Med. 2022). Here, we report updated efficacy and safety outcomes from ZUMA-12 in all patients treated with axi-cel after a median follow-up of ≥40 months. Methods: Eligible adults had high-risk LBCL, with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements (double- or triple-hit histology) per investigator or an International Prognostic Index (IPI) score ≥3, plus a positive interim PET per Lugano classification (Deauville score 4/5) after 2 cycles of an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and anthracycline-containing regimen. Patients underwent leukapheresis, followed by lymphodepleting chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide and fludarabine) on Days -5, -4, and -3, and a single axi-cel infusion of 2×10 6 CAR T cells/kg on Day 0. Per investigator discretion, non-chemotherapy bridging could be administered. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed CR rate per Lugano classification (Cheson et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014). Secondary endpoints included ORR, duration of response (DOR), event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and levels of CAR T cells in blood and cytokines in serum. Results: As of May 3, 2023, 42 patients were enrolled and 40 were treated with axi-cel, with a median follow-up of 40.9 months (range, 29.5-50.2). In total, 37 patients were evaluable for response (centrally confirmed double- or triple-hit histology or IPI score ≥3). The CR rate was 86% (95% CI, 71-95), and 92% (95% CI, 78-98) of patients had an objective response. Patients with centrally confirmed double- or triple-hit histology (n=10) had a CR rate of 90%. Responses were ongoing in 73% of response-evaluable patients at data cutoff. Medians for DOR, EFS, PFS, and OS were not reached. The 36-month estimates for DOR, EFS (Figure 1), PFS, and OS (Figure 2) were 82%, 73%, 75%, and 81%, respectively. All treated patients (n=40) experienced adverse events (AEs) of any grade and 88% of patients had grade ≥3 AEs. Similar to the primary analysis, the most common any-grade AEs were pyrexia (100%), headache (70%), and neutrophil count decreased (55%). No new cases of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or neurologic events of any grade occurred since the prior data cut and all cases of CRS and neurologic events reported were resolved by data cutoff. Prolonged cytopenias of any grade (present Day ≥30 post-infusion) occurred in 9 patients (n=7 neutrophil count decreased) and were resolved by data cutoff. There were 8 deaths due to progressive disease (n=5) and other causes not related to axi-cel (1 COVID-19, 1 esophageal adenocarcinoma, 1 septic shock on Days 350, 535, and 287 post axi-cel infusion, respectively). Two of the 8 deaths (1 progressive disease and 1 esophageal adenocarcinoma) occurred after the primary analysis. Among treated patients, post-infusion CAR T-cell expansion by peak and area under the curve was 36.9 cells/µL and 368.0 cells/µL×days, respectively, in those with ongoing responses at data cutoff (n=17), 45.1 cells/µL and 413.4 cells/µL×days in those who relapsed (n=6), and 34.7 cells/µL and 566.8 cells/µL×days in non-responders (n=3). Conclusion: In this updated analysis of ZUMA-12 with a median follow-up of ≥40 months, axi-cel demonstrated a high rate of durable responses and no new safety signals. Axi-cel may benefit patients exposed to fewer prior therapies and those with high-risk LBCL, a population with high unmet need and poor outcomes after standard first-line chemoimmunotherapy.

Background: Maintenance therapy with brentuximab vedotin (BV) after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improved progression-free survival (PFS) among high-risk patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in the phase III AETHERA trial. However, cHL treatment has changed significantly since that trial with frequent incorporation of BV and PD-1 inhibitors into earlier lines of therapy. The efficacy of BV maintenance may be different among pts who receive novel agents before ASCT. Methods: Pts with a diagnosis of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT between 2010 and 2022 were identified at 5 US transplant centers. Pts receiving no systemic post-ASCT maintenance or BV maintenance were included, while pts receiving investigational maintenance treatments were excluded. Medical records were reviewed to identify clinical variables. Results: 921 pts were identified. Median age was 32 yrs (IQR 24-44). 641 pts (70%) had primary refractory disease or relapsed within 12 months of frontline therapy, 326 (35%) had extranodal disease at relapse, and 173 (19%) had B symptoms at relapse. Pts received a median of 2 (1-9) lines of therapy before ASCT, including 295 (32%) who received ≥3 lines. 425 (46%) pts received BV before ASCT (including 24 pts as part of frontline treatment). 70 pts (8%) were BV-refractory (defined as failure to achieve an objective response to any BV-based treatment). 169 (18%) received a PD-1 agent with salvage treatment. 638 pts (69%) had a complete response on pre-ASCT positron emission tomography (PET). BEAM (71%) or CBV (21%) conditioning were used for most pts and 236 pts (26%) received peri-ASCT radiation. 224 pts (24%) received post-ASCT BV maintenance (including 37% of pts undergoing ASCT from 2015-2022). Compared to pts receiving no maintenance, pts receiving BV maintenance were more likely to have primary refractory/early relapsed disease (79% vs 67%, p<0.001), have received only 1 salvage regimen (79% vs 65%, p=0.001), and received BEAM conditioning (83% vs 67%, p<0.001). BV maintenance pts were less likely to receive peri-ASCT radiation (20% vs 28%, p=0.022). The median number of BV maintenance cycles was 10 (1-18) and the most common reason for discontinuation was neuropathy. Median post-ASCT follow-up was 4.9 yrs. 5-yr PFS and OS after ASCT were 70% (95% CI 67-74%) and 85% (83-88%), respectively. Because BV-refractory pts were much less likely to receive BV maintenance (p=0.0044) and had inferior PFS (HR 2.2, p<0.001) (and therefore would serve as a confounder), we excluded BV-refractory pts from additional analyses. Use of BV maintenance was associated with improved PFS (5-yr 81% vs 67%, HR 0.47 [0.33-0.69], p<0.001) and OS (5-yr 92% vs 83%, HR 0.38 [0.20-0.73], p=0.004). The benefit of BV maintenance depended upon pre-ASCT therapy. BV maintenance was associated with a significant improvement in PFS for pts who received no novel agents before ASCT (HR 0.41 [0.25-0.65], p<0.001), but not for BV-treated (HR 0.69 [0.38-1.25], p=0.22) or PD-1-treated pts (HR 0.63 [0.13-3.03], p=0.56) ( Figure). Among pts with 0-1 modified AETHERA risk factors, BV maintenance was not associated with a significant PFS benefit in any treatment subgroup (no novel agents, HR 0.50, p=0.087; BV-treated, HR 1.28, p=0.67; PD-1-treated, HR 2.97, p=0.44). For pts with 2+ modified AETHERA risk factors, BV maintenance significantly improved PFS in the no novel agent group (HR 0.35, p<0.001) but not in the BV-treated (HR 0.55, p=0.099) or PD-1 treated groups (HR 0.24, p=0.19). In multivariable analyses that included key variables (age, year of ASCT, conditioning regimen, peri-ASCT radiation, early relapse/primary refractory disease, B symptoms, extranodal sites, pre-ASCT PET, lines of therapy), BV maintenance was associated with a significant PFS benefit among pts who received no novel agents before ASCT (HR 0.27 [0.12-0.65], p<0.001), but not for pts treated with BV (HR 0.56 [0.28-1.10], p=0.091) or PD-1 blockade (HR 1.10 [0.22-5.56], p=0.91) before ASCT. Conclusions: In this large cohort, BV maintenance was associated with the clearest benefit among pts who received only chemotherapy before ASCT. We were unable to identify a significant improvement in PFS for pts receiving novel agents before ASCT (which could be due to insufficient power to detect a small benefit in this population), suggesting that if these pts benefit from BV maintenance, its impact is likely more limited.

Background: Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART) therapy is a standard of care in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (RR) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). However, it remains underutilized in elderly pts due to limited efficacy and safety data. We therefore evaluated real world outcomes of CART in such pts. Methods: Seven academic centers participated in this retrospective study. Pts aged ≥65 years with RR LBCL who received a commercial CART product were included. Baseline characteristics, treatment data, CART toxicity, and clinical outcomes were collected. Progression-free survival (PFS; time from infusion to disease progression or death) and overall survival (OS; time from infusion to death from any cause) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method. Cumulative incidences of non-relapse mortality (NRM) and disease relapse/progression were estimated accounting for competing risks. Statistical analyses were performed in JMP v15 and XLSTAT v2022.1.2. Results: 209 pts were identified. Baseline characteristics and treatment pattern are shown in Table. Median age at infusion was 71 years (range 65-89), and 25 (12%) were ≥80 years. 131 (63%) were male, 188 (90%) were white, and 27 (13%) had ECOG PS of ≥2. The median HCT-CI was 1 (range 0-6), and 39 (22%) pts had a score of ≥3. 165 (84%) had stage III-IV disease, 131 (70%) had extranodal involvement, 24 (18%) had bulky disease, and 24 (11%) had high grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL; double- or triple-hit lymphoma, n=15; HGBL, NOS, n=9). The median number of prior lines of therapy was 2 (range 1-8), and 99 (48%) pts had ≥3 prior lines of therapy, 45 (22%) had prior bendamustine, and 44 (21%) had prior stem cell transplant (SCT; auto-SCT, n=41; allo-SCT, n=2; both auto- and allo-SCT, n=1). Bridging therapy was given to 100 (52%) pts; among those, 57 had chemotherapy, 20 had radiotherapy, 6 had both chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 10 had lenalidomide-based regimen, and 7 had CD20 antibody and/or corticosteroids. Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was most frequently used (63%, n=131), followed by lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) (24%, n=49) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) (13%, n=27). Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) occurred in 75% of pts, and a minority (6%) had grade ≥3. Immune effector cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred in 55%, and 29% had grade ≥3. The management of CRS and ICANS included corticosteroids in 101 (49%) pts, tocilizumab in 116 (56%) pts, and other biologic agents (anakinra, siltuximab, basiliximab) in 8 (4%) pts. Day 30 response was evaluable in 195 pts with an objective response rate (ORR) of 84%, and a complete response rate (CR) of 52%. 82% of the responders continued to have a response at 3 month follow up. The ORR/CR rates were 86%/53% for axi-cel, 64%/44% for tisa-cel, and 89%/52% for liso-cel, respectively. At a median follow up of 19.1 months (95% CI 16.1-23.6) after infusion, the median PFS was 6.7 months (95% CI 5.1-11.5), with 6- and 12-month PFS rates of 54% (95% CI 47-61) and 43% (95% CI 35-50), respectively. The median OS was 16.5 months (95% CI 13.2-26.7), and the 6-and 12-month OS rates were 70% (95% CI 64-77) and 61% (95% CI 54-68), respectively. The NRM rate was 17% (95% CI 11-24) at 1 year, primarily due to infections including 5 COVID-19 related deaths. In univariate analysis, ECOG PS ≥2, bulky disease, elevated LDH, and the need for bridging therapy were associated with inferior PFS and OS. No significant difference in PFS and OS was seen based on age at infusion with a median PFS of 6.4 vs 9.6 vs 6.4 vs 6.0 months ( P=0.93) (Figure) and OS of 16.4 vs 19.2 vs 28.5 vs 12.7 months ( P=0.85) in age groups ≥65-69 vs ≥70-74 vs ≥75-79 vs ≥80-89. In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in PFS and OS based on type of CART with a median PFS of 6.4 vs 5.6 vs 12.7 months ( P=0.16) and OS of 15.1 vs vs 16.1 vs NR months ( P=0.24) in pts treated with axi-cel vs tisa-cel vs liso-cel. Conclusions: In this large multicenter study of elderly pts with RR LBCL, CART therapy demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety profile comparable to that in pivotal registration trials. Survival outcomes appeared similar regardless of patient age, including those aged ≥80 years, and type of CART product used. Similar to younger pts, high tumor burden and poor performance status at CART infusion were associated with inferior survival. This analysis confirms that older pts should not be excluded from receiving CART therapy solely due to chronological age.

Introduction: Despite the development of advanced treatment options, multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease. Most MM patients relapse and require further treatments. B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) targeted immunotherapy is a novel MM therapy class that is now available to heavily pre-treated relapse/refractory MM (R/R MM) patients, who were triple class exposed (TCE) to proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. As BCMA therapies continue to be further utilized and become an integral part of MM treatment, the proportion of TCE patients who are also BCMA exposed (TCE+BCMA exposed) is expected to grow. However, the clinical outcomes of TCE+BCMA exposed RRMM patients have not been previously assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the real-world outcomes of TCE+BCMA exposed MM patients who started a subsequent LOT, describing their characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes. Subgroups of penta-drug exposed (at least two PIs, at least two IMiDs, and at least one anti-CD38) patients, as well as White and African American patients were also evaluated as penta-drug exposure status and race were known to impact clinical outcomes. Methods: Adult patients with MM who were TCE+BCMA exposed and started a subsequent LOT starting from July 03, 2019 (when additional new treatment options became available) were selected from the Komodo Healthcare Map (a US claims dataset) and were followed until the earliest of death, last claim, or end of study period (December 31, 2022). Index date was defined as the start date of the subsequent LOT following TCE and BCMA exposure. Descriptive statistics were provided for patient characteristics and treatment patterns. Clinical outcomes including time to treatment discontinuation or death (TTD) and time to next treatment or death (TTNT) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 344 TCE+BCMA exposed patients, who received the next LOT were included in the study, including 152 (44.2%) patients who were penta-drug exposed before index, 57 (16.6%) African American, and 185 (53.8%) White patients. Key baseline demographic characteristics and treatment history for the overall group and the three subgroups are listed in Table 1. The mean (SD) and median number of prior LOTs for the overall group before index date were 5.7 (1.7) and 6.0, respectively. The most prevalent prior treatments before the index date for the overall group were daratumumab (99.1%), belantamab mafadotin (91.9%), pomalidomide (84.3%), carfilzomib (83.1 %), bortezomib (76.2%) and lenalidomide (72.1%). Excluding corticosteroids, the most frequently used index treatments (i.e., treatment used post TCE+BCMA exposure) were carfilzomib- (21.9%), bortezomib- (20.8%), pomalidomide- (18.3%), and belantamab mafadotin- (18.3%) based regimens. The median (95% confidence interval [CI]) TTD was 3.7 (3.3, 4.4) months, and the median (95% CI) TTNT was 6.4 (5.5, 7.6) months. TTD and TTNT estimates for the three subgroups are listed in Table 2. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first real-world study of treatment patterns and outcomes for TCE+BCMA exposed MM patients who started a subsequent LOT. The findings showed that this group of heavily pretreated MM patients were often retreated with the same therapies or therapies in the same classes, as they have limited effective treatment options. TCE+BCMA exposed patients exhibited poor clinical outcomes, as demonstrated by the rapid treatment discontinuation and moving on to the next treatment shortly after initial treatment. Many patients were already penta-drug exposed, and they appear to have worse clinical outcomes than the overall patient group. A shorter TTD was observed, and a trend for shorter TTNT was observed among African American patients than White patients. The findings highlight the continued need for effective treatments for heavily treated MM patients and particularly those with poor outcomes.

Introduction: Axi-cel utilization expanded after demonstration of superior event-free survival in patients (pts) with early relapsed or primary refractory LBCL (Locke, et al. NEJM. 2022) and was reinforced by improved overall survival (OS) among these pts (Westin, et al. NEJM. 2023). Despite increased demand, limited data exist on the impact of bridging therapies (BT) on pt outcomes. Thus, BT use between leukapheresis and lymphodepletion (LD) is largely at the discretion of treating physicians. Here, we assessed the impact of BT on effectiveness and safety outcomes after axi-cel. Methods: Pts receiving axi-cel for 3L+ LBCL in the US between 2017-2020 were prospectively collected through the CIBMTR registry in a post-authorization safety study; data up to May 2023 were included. Effectiveness outcomes were overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Safety outcomes were cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) per ASTCT grading, non-relapse mortality (NRM), and other key adverse events. Propensity score-based inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used in logistic and Cox regressions to account for potential confounding in BT use. For pts who had BT, effects of BT types and responses on outcomes were evaluated using conventional logistic and Cox regressions. Results: Of 1497 pts registered, 1307 had BT data available and were included (median follow-up, 36 mo). Overall, 430 pts (33%) received BT (median time from leukapheresis to LD, 23 days [IQR, 21-28]). Systemic therapy was used in 403 pts (31%), including 305 (23%) with chemotherapy (CT)-based BT (19% treated with CT + anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody [mAb; mainly rituximab] and 4% with CT only), and 98 (7%) with non-CT systemic therapy (Table). Radiotherapy (± systemic therapy) was used in 44 pts (3%). Pts with ≥3 lines of prior therapy (odds ratio [OR], 10.67 [95% CI, 7.17−15.87]) or mild hepatic impairment prior to infusion (OR, 1.64 [1.06−2.55]) were more likely to receive BT, while those with histologic transformation (OR, 0.69 [0.51−0.92]) or longer time from diagnosis to leukapheresis were less likely to receive BT. ORRs to axi-cel were 70% and 79% (CR rates 51% and 64%) for pts with or without BT, respectively. Unadjusted DOR, PFS, and OS at 3 years were 40%, 28%, and 37%, respectively, in pts with BT vs 49%, 39%, and 49%, respectively, in those without BT. After multivariate adjustment, no statistical significance was found between BT and any effectiveness outcome. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for BT were 1.13 (95% CI, 0.94-1.36) for PFS and 1.11 (95% CI, 0.92-1.34) for OS, respectively (Figure). Most safety endpoints were consistent regardless of BT. Grade ≥3 CRS and ICANS occurred in 12% and 30% of pts, respectively, who received BT vs 10% and 24% of pts who did not. Use of BT was associated with more frequent prolonged neutropenia (OR, 2.24 [1.44-3.50]) and thrombocytopenia (OR, 2.33 [1.67-3.24]), but not associated with a higher rate of infections or NRM (Table). Among pts receiving BT, 74 (17%) had a CR or partial response to BT. Of them, median PFS and median OS post infusion were 12.7 mo (3.8-not estimable [NE]) and 48.7 mo (18.6-NE), respectively. Response to BT was associated with increased CR rate (OR, 2.00 [1.07-3.75]), PFS (HR, 0.69 [0.49-0.99]), and OS (HR, 0.59 [0.40-0.88]) and decreased any-grade ICANS (OR, 0.51 [0.29-0.92]). When different BT strategies were considered, effectiveness and most safety outcomes for CT + anti-CD20 mAb vs non-CT treatment were comparable without significant difference. CT + anti-CD20 mAb was associated with improved ORR (OR, 1.90 [1.00-3.60]), PFS (HR, 0.69 [0.49-0.98]), and OS (HR, 0.66 [0.46-0.95]) but increased any-grade CRS (OR, 2.16 [1.02-4.57]) vs CT only. CT use was associated with an increased risk of prolonged thrombocytopenia (41% vs 24% for pts receiving non-CT treatment; OR, 2.37 [1.39-4.02]). No significant association was found between use of radiotherapy as BT and any outcome. Conclusion: These US real-world findings suggest that the addition of BT prior to axi-cel is associated with more frequent prolonged cytopenias but does not impact effectiveness or other critical safety outcomes. Response to BT may prognosticate more favorable outcomes after axi-cel infusion. Further study is warranted to identify the optimal bridging regimen.

Introduction: Single arm studies incorporating PD-1 blockade and/or brentuximab vedotin (BV) to salvage regimen have produced encouraging results in transplant-eligible relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) and are increasingly used in practice. As prospective randomized studies comparing PD1 based salvage to other salvage regimens are lacking, we conducted a retrospective study comparing post-transplant outcomes of R/R cHL patients who received PD1-based regimen and other novel and conventional regimen. Methods: Consecutive adult patients with R/R cHL who received salvage therapy and underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) between 2010 and 2021 at 5 United States academic institutions were included. Demographics and clinical variables were recorded at relapse by electronic health records review. Study Objectives were post-ASCT progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 981 pts of R/R cHL were identified. At relapse, median age was 31 (IQR: 21-43) years, 504 (52%) were male, 323 (49%) had advanced stage, 353 (41%) had extranodal disease (END), 185 (22%) had B symptoms, 345 (45%) were refractory to frontline therapy and 317 (32%) relapsed within a year of frontline therapy.308 (31%) received >1 line of salvage before ASCT. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on salvage therapy received: 1) 195 (20%) patients received a PD-1 agent with or without BV at any point before ASCT (PD-1 group), 2) 312 (32%) patients received BV at any point before ASCT without PD-1 (BV group), and 3) 474 (48%) patients received no novel agent before ASCT (chemo group). PFS was significantly higher in PD1 group (2-yr PFS 93.1 (CI 95: 89.4-96.9)%); compared to BV (2 yr PFS 73.9 (CI 95: 69.1-79.1)% , p <0.0001) or chemo groups (2 yr PFS 71.6 (CI 95: 67.6-75.9)% , p<0.0001). PFS was not different between the BV and chemo groups (p=0.88) (Figure 1). OS was not significantly different between PD-1 group (2 yr OS 96.2 % (CI 95: 93.2-99.2), p=0.06), BV group (2 yr OS 94.3% (CI 95: 91.7-97.0), p=0.2) and chemo group (2 yr OS 91.8% (CI 95: 89.3-94.4)). Amongst pts who were transplanted in complete metabolic response (CMR), we assessed post-ASCT PFS and OS based on salvage therapy received immediately before ASCT. Pts who received PD-1 as last salvage therapy had improved PFS compared to chemo (HR: 0.15 (CI 95: 0.07-0.3), p= <0.0001) and BV (HR: 0.2 (CI 95: 0.08-0.5), p= <0.001). Pts receiving PD-1 immediately before ASCT also had higher OS compared to those receiving chemo (HR: 0.2 (CI 95: 0.05-0.8), p= 0.02) but not BV (HR: 0.8 (CI 95: 0.4-1.3), p=0.1). There was no difference between BV and chemo group in regards to PFS and OS. In multivariable analysis that included time to relapse, B symptoms, END, pre-ASCT response, number of salvage therapy lines before ASCT, year of transplant and BV consolidation, PD-1 salvage therapy had significantly higher PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR: 0.3 (CI 95: 0.2-0.5), p= <0.001). BV group had significantly lower PFS (HR: 3.34 (CI 95: 1.8-6.0), group=0.002) compared to PD1 group. PFS was not different between BV and chemo group (p= 0.7). OS was similar between all 3 groups. Similar PFS and OS were seen among patients receiving PD-1 + BV (n=83) and PD-1 with or without chemo (n =112) (p=0.96 for PFS; p= 0.72 for OS); as well as for patients receiving PD-1 as part of their first salvage therapy (n=151) or later salvage treatments (n=44) (p=0.45 for PFS, p= 0.3 for OS). Patients who received PD1 based regimen as last salvage therapy pre-ASCT had significantly better PFS (HR: 6.8 (CI 95: 2.4-19.2), p= <0.0001) and OS (HR: 10.6 (CI 95: 2.5-44.8), p= 0.0001) compared to patients who received PD1 prior to their last line of salvage therapy per-ASCT. Conclusion: Receipt of PD-1 based salvage therapy at any point before ASCT is associated with significantly improved PFS compared to either BV or chemotherapy-based salvage treatments. In the subgroup of patients transplanted in CMR, PD1 based last salvage regimen were associated with higher PFS compared to chemotherapy and BV and higher OS compared to chemotherapy. PD1 based last salvage therapy pre-ASCT was associated with better survival compared to PD1 prior to last salvage therapy. Results of this study strongly support the use of PD-1 based salvage therapy for patients with R/R cHL. S.D., R.M., H.S contributed equally. R.S., M.M. contributed equally.

Aim: Patients with R/R LBCL after first-line treatment have poor prognosis. Multiple novel therapies have been approved for R/R LBCL in recent years, but CIT regimens are still commonly used. This study evaluated the effectiveness of CIT and novel therapies in 2L+ in patients with R/R LBCL and the association between patient clinical characteristics and real-world outcomes. Methods: This was a multi-site retrospective observational study of patients aged ≥18 years with R/R LBCL in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Consortium of Real-World Evidence (CReWE) cohort (patients followed from 1/1/2015 to 2/15/2023) who were treated with CIT or novel therapy in 2L+. CIT regimens included salvage/palliative chemotherapy, lenalidomide, rituximab, or obinutuzumab, used alone or in combination. Novel therapies included polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab or variations thereof (i.e., pola-based regimen), tafasitamab plus lenalidomide or variations thereof (tafa-based regimen), and loncastuximab tesirine (lonca). Patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were assessed from the first confirmed R/R disease diagnosis and initiation of 2L+ therapy. When multiple lines of therapy (LOTs) were eligible for inclusion in the analysis, one was randomly selected as the index LOT. Real-world outcomes, determined by investigators at each clinical site, including overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DOR), duration of complete response (DOCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were described for all patients in each treatment group and for the subgroup of patients with prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards models were used to assess associations between select patient clinical characteristics and real-world outcomes. Results: The study population included patients treated with CIT (N=653), pola-based regimen (N=116), tafa-based regimen (N=55), and lonca (N=42) ( Figure 1A). The median (m) age at date of index treatment initiation across groups ranged from 63 to 74 years. Across groups, most patients had primary refractory disease-i.e., were refractory to the first LOT (69.5% CIT vs. 73.3% pola vs. 58.2% tafa vs. 71.4% lonca), whereas variable proportions had one prior LOT (65.5% vs. 17.2% vs. 43.6% vs. 7.1%) and prior CAR T-cell therapy (5.1% vs. 43.1% vs. 32.7% vs. 47.6%). In the CIT group, ORR was 33.8%, 15.5% of patients achieved CR, mPFS (95% CI) was 1.9 (1.7, 2.1) months, and mOS was 9.1 (8.1, 10.5) months. In the pola group, ORR was 42.2%, 24.1% of patients achieved CR, mPFS was 2.5 (2, 3.2) months and mOS was 7.8 (6.4, 11.8) months. In the tafa group, ORR was 25.5%, 14.5% of patients achieved CR, mPFS was 2.7 (2.1, 4.2) months, and mOS was 8 (5.3, 12.7) months. In the lonca group, ORR was 40.5%, 21.4% of patients achieved CR, mPFS was 3 (2.1, 5.1) months, and mOS was 4.7 (3.7, 10.8) months. Demographics and outcomes for all patients and those who received prior CAR T-cell therapy are summarized in Figure 1A. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk score ≥3, CIT as the index treatment type, and primary refractory status were significantly associated with time from response to progression/death (P<0.05; Figure 1B). IPI risk score ≥3, CIT as the index treatment type, and primary refractory status were significantly associated with worse PFS. IPI risk ≥3, ≥3 prior LOTs, and primary refractory status were significantly associated with OS. Conclusion: In this large clinical cohort of patients with R/R LBCL with high proportions having primary refractory disease, all common treatments were associated with modest ORR/CR and poor OS. Receiving CIT treatments, higher IPI score, primary refractory status, and higher number of prior LOTs were significantly associated with poor clinical outcomes. A study with larger sample size and longer follow-up may be warranted to further understand the clinical effectiveness of novel treatments. Thus, despite the availability of novel treatments during the study period, these findings highlight the need for more effective treatment alternatives beyond currently available options to improve outcomes.