O’Connor, Timothy E.

Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for adults with relapsed or refractory (r/r) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). Blinatumomab is a CD19-directed bispecific T-cell engager that is also approved for r/r B-ALL, and often used as early salvage therapy. Data in the pediatric/AYA population suggest that patients who did not respond to blinatumomab may have inferior outcomes to CD19-directed CAR-T products compared to those who have achieved a response to blinatumomab or were blinatumomab-naïve (Myers et al. J Clin Oncol 2022). In this study, we evaluate the response to blinatumomab and subsequent response to brexu-cel in adults with r/r B-ALL. Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 25 centers across the U.S. as part of the real-world outcomes collaborative study of CAR-T in B-ALL (ROCCA). Consecutive patients treated with brexu-cel from 2021 to 2023 were categorized by blinatumomab exposure status. Those exposed were separated into “blinatumomab responders” (B-R), defined as patients achieving a CR/CRi in response to any number of cycles of blinatumomab, and “non-responders” (B-NR). Each cohort was compared for outcomes of interest. The primary outcome was CR/CRi rate at day 28 following brexu-cel administration. Secondary outcomes were duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Survival outcomes were calculated from day of brexu-cel infusion and were not censored for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation or maintenance therapy. All living patients were censored at data cutoff on June 30, 2023. Survival comparisons were made by log rank test. Results: Among 152 patients who received brexu-cel, the median follow-up time was 8.4 months. Eighty-eight (57%) of 152 r/r B-ALL brexu-cel recipients had received blinatumomab prior to apheresis. The median number of pre-apheresis blinatumomab cycles was 2 (range 1-12). The baseline characteristics of B-R, B-NR, and blinatumomab-naïve (B-NV) patients were similar, including pre-apheresis disease burden and receipt of maintenance therapy following brexu-cel infusion (Table 1). Seventy percent (N= 62) of the blinatumomab-exposed patients were B-R, while 30% (N=26) were B-NR. Rates of CR/CRi at day 28 following brexu-cel infusion were similar between B-R, B-NR, and B-NV patients (79% vs 84% vs 78%, respectively). Most of these remissions were negative for measurable residual disease (MRD), with similar MRD negativity rates in the three groups (table 2). 1-year DOR and PFS were significantly higher in the B-NV group compared to B-R or B-NR (77% vs 49% vs 50%, p<.0001; 60% vs 37% vs 30%, p<.0001). B-NV and B-R had better 1-year survival compared to B-NR (71% vs 65% vs 32%, p<.0001). There were more CD19-negative relapses following brexu-cel in B-NR (29%) and B-R (18%) compared to B-NV patients (8%), although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Brexu-cel induced deep responses in a majority of adults with r/r B-ALL, irrespective of prior exposure or response to blinatumomab. Similar to data published by the pediatric CAR-T cell groups, our data draw speculation that adult patients who did not respond to blinatumomab experience shorter overall survival following brexu-cel compared to those who responded to or did not receive blinatumomab. This should be confirmed in a larger, prospective clinical trial. Because this analysis could not account for patients who achieved durable remission after blinatumomab, these differences may not reflect superiority of sequencing brexu-cel before blinatumomab. The higher number of CD19-negative relapses in the blinatumomab-exposed cohort add to the interest in pursuing strategies to address antigen escape following CAR-T cell therapy directed against a previously targeted antigen.

Introduction: Brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexu-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for adults with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R B-ALL). Bridging therapy, defined as anti-leukemia therapy given between apheresis and lymphodepleting chemotherapy, was permitted on the pivotal ZUMA-3 trial. The optimal bridging therapy is unknown in this setting. Here we report patient and disease characteristics in those receiving bridging therapies prior to brexu-cel and the impact of bridging on clinical outcomes in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results: ROCCA includes 25 US institutions contributing retrospective data from 152 B-ALL patients treated with standard of care brexu-cel between 2021-2023. Ninety-nine patients (65%) received bridging therapy, while 53 patients (35%) received no bridging therapy. Bridging therapy consisted of cytotoxic chemotherapy ( n=65, 66%), immunotherapy ( n=26, 26%; 23 inotuzumab, 3 blinatumomab), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) ( n=20, 20%; 16 ponatinib), steroids only ( n=10, 10%), and intrathecal chemotherapy ( n=22, 22%). The median age of the cohort was 46 (IQR 32-61). Patients were heavily pre-treated with a median of 4 prior lines of therapy. The median days from apheresis to infusion was 33 (IQR 26-42). 119 patients had known pre-apheresis blast counts; the bridging group had higher pre-apheresis blast burden, with 21 of 76 patients (28%) having ≥ 50% blasts compared to only 5 of 43 patients (12%) in the no bridging group ( p=0.02). In addition, more patients who received bridging had pre-apheresis extramedullary disease (32% vs. 15%, p=0.02). All other baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups (Table 1). Fifty-four (54%) patients had response assessment after bridging therapy and prior to brexu-cel infusion. In patients who received inotuzumab for pre-apheresis active disease, defined as ≥ 5% blasts, 6 of 13 (46%) who had post-bridging assessment achieved a complete response (CR; 5 measurable residual disease (MRD)+, 1 MRD-), with a mean proportional reduction in blast burden of 46% from baseline. In contrast, after chemotherapy bridging, only 2 of 16 patients (13%) with pre-apheresis active disease had a CR. Patients receiving chemotherapy bridging had a mean proportional increase in blast burden of 4.4%. In recipients of TKI bridging, 2 of 4 patients (50%) with pre-apheresis active disease had a CR. Compared to no bridging, patients in the bridging group had similar rates of grade 3 or 4 CRS (9% bridging vs. 8% no bridging, p=0.73) and grade 3 or 4 ICANS (34% vs. 26%, p=0.32). In univariate analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in day 28 response with 63 patients (72%) achieving MRD- complete response in the bridging group as compared to 36 patients (78%) in the no bridging group ( p=0.60). Non-relapse mortality was similar between the two groups (17% bridging vs. 9% no bridging, p=0.20). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were superior in the no bridging group: 1-year OS 74.7% vs 56.8% (log-rank p=0.04), and 1-year PFS 57.3% vs 41.7% (log-rank p=0.04). In a multivariate analysis stratified by bridging and pre-apheresis disease burden, patients with pre-apheresis blasts ≥ 5% and bridging had worse survival than ≥ 5% blasts and no bridging: 1-year OS 45.3% vs. 87.5% and 1-year PFS 27.7% vs. 64.3% (Figure 1). However, patients with < 5% blasts had similar survival regardless of bridging. Conclusions: In our real-world analysis, adults with R/R B-ALL receiving bridging therapy had a higher disease burden at baseline. Despite greater baseline disease, there were no significant differences in toxicity and day 28 response in those receiving bridging therapy vs. not. While survival was inferior in patients with pre-apheresis active disease who received bridging, this may be confounded by the degree of tumor burden. In patients with < 5% blasts pre-apheresis, bridging did not impact survival. Furthermore, inotuzumab bridging demonstrated the most significant disease debulking. However, the comparisons in this study are limited by the variability in practice for post-bridging disease reassessment and the small proportion of patients with active disease who did not receive bridging. A more uniform approach to peri-CAR disease assessment would enable more robust study of optimal bridging strategies.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701