Herr, Megan M.

Background: Tec is a BCMA-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) approved for RRMM after ≥4 prior lines of therapy (LOT) based on the MajesTEC-1 trial. However, patients who had previously received a BCMA-DT were excluded from MajesTEC-1. Herein, we evaluated outcomes of RRMM patients with prior exposure to BCMA-DT treated with standard-of-care Tec. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. We compared variables between different groups using Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. We used the maximally selected rank statistics method to determine the optimal cut-off point for continuous variables to find the most significant difference in PFS among different groups. Results: A total of 385 patients were included in this study. 193 patients had received a prior BCMA-DT, of whom 77%, 22%, and 1% had received 1, 2, and 3 prior anti-BCMA agents, respectively. In patients who had received a prior BCMA-DT, 35% were aged ≥70 years, 24% had ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, 61% had high-risk FISH, 32% had extramedullary disease (EMD) at Tec initiation, and 42% were penta-refractory. Compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-DT (n=192), patients who were treated with prior BCMA-DT were more likely to have high risk FISH (61% vs 49%, p=0.02), and higher median number of prior LOT (7 vs 5, p <0.001). The specific types of prior BCMA-DTs with the respective overall response rate (ORR) to the most recent prior BCMA-DT were: antibody drug conjugate only (ADC, n=47, ORR 43%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy only (CAR T, n=99, ORR 86%), BsAb only (n=6, ORR 100%), ADC + CAR T (n=36, ORR 56%), and other ADC/CAR T/BsAb combinations (n=5, ORR 60%). Median follow up was 9.9 (95% CI:9.5-10.6) months. Patients with prior receipt of BCMA-DT had a lower ORR (51.4% vs 61.5%; p=0.012) and ≥very good partial response rate (39.4% vs 52.6%, p=0.009), but similar ≥complete response rate (22.3% vs 24%; p=0.78) to Tec compared to those without prior BCMA-DT. Moreover, patients with prior BCMA-DT had worse median PFS compared to patients without prior BCMA-DT (prior BCMA-DT: 4.6 months, 95% CI: 2.7-7.5; without prior BCMA-DT: 8.2 months, 95% CI: 5.7-12.2; p=0.017). On multivariable analysis incorporating prior BCMA-DT, age, cytogenetics, EMD, and ECOG PS, receipt of prior BCMA-DT was not independently associated with PFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95-1.64, p=0.1). The estimated 1-year OS rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 51.64-67.2) for the prior BCMA-DT group vs 65.1% (95% CI: 58.1-73.1) for the group without prior BCMA-DT, p=0.16. For the prior BCMA-DT cohort, response rates to Tec were numerically higher in patients who received CAR T (ORR 51.2%) followed by ADC (ORR 45.5%), and bispecific (ORR 30%) as their most recent prior BCMA-DT (p=0.39). No significant difference in PFS was noted when stratifying patients by number of prior BCMA-DTs, types of all prior BCMA-DTs received, type of most recent prior BCMA-DT, or depth of response to most recent BCMA-DT. Patients who responded to Tec had a numerically longer median time from most recent BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation compared to non-responders: 10.5 vs 7.5 months, p=0.48. We found that the optimal cut-off for time from last BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation was 8.7 months. Patients with > 8.7 months between last exposure to prior BCMA-DT and Tec initiation had a superior median PFS with Tec (8.1 months, 95% CI: 4.6-11.7) compared to patients with < 8.7 months from last exposure to prior BCMA-DT (2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.1-5.7), p=0.001. The toxicity profile for patients with prior BCMA-DT was similar to those who had not received a prior BCMA-DT. Grade ≥2 CRS occurred in 8.7% vs 13% (p=0.18), and grade ≥2 ICANS in 7.7% vs 6.7%, (p=0.85) of patients with and without prior BCMA-DT, respectively. Patients in the prior BCMA-DT cohort were more likely to have grade 3 thrombocytopenia in the first 30 days after Tec initiation (10.7% vs 6.6%; p=0.08). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of any BCMA-directed BsAb among BCMA-exposed patients. Receipt of prior BCMA-DT was associated with a trend toward worse PFS, although not statistically significant, and lower likelihood of attaining an overall response. Waiting >9 months between sequencing BCMA therapies may be associated with improved PFS. D.D., M.A.V.M., J.A.D: co first authors; F.A., C.F., L.S.: co senior authors

Abstract Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) was approved in 2022 for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We report outcomes with cilta-cel in the standard-of-care setting. Patients with RRMM who underwent leukapheresis for cilta-cel manufacturing between 1 March 2022 and 31 December 2022 at 16 US academic medical centers were included. Overall, 255 patients underwent leukapheresis and 236 (92.5%) received cilta-cel, of which 54% would not have met CARTITUDE-1 eligibility criteria. In treated patients (N = 236), cytokine release syndrome was seen in 75% (grade ≥3, 5%), immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome in 14% (grade ≥3, 4%), and delayed neurotoxicity in 10%. Overall and complete response rates were as follows: all patients who received cilta-cel (N = 236), 89% and 70%; patients receiving conforming cilta-cel (n = 191), 94% and 74%; and conforming cilta-cel with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide lymphodepletion (n = 152), 95% and 76%, respectively. Nonrelapse mortality was 10%, most commonly from infection. After a median follow-up of 13 months from cilta-cel, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached, with 12-month estimate being 68% (95% confidence interval, 62-74). High ferritin levels, high-risk cytogenetics, and extramedullary disease were independently associated with inferior PFS, with a signal for prior B-cell maturation antigen–targeted therapy (P = .08). Second primary malignancies excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers were seen in 5.5% and myeloid malignancies/acute leukemia in 1.7%. We observed a favorable efficacy profile of standard-of-care cilta-cel in RRMM, despite more than half the patients not meeting the CARTITUDE-1 eligibility criteria.

ImportanceUtilization of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for hematologic cancers previously demonstrated race, ethnicity, and age-based disparities.ObjectiveTo evaluate utilization over time by race, ethnicity, and age to determine if disparities persist in light of recent significant increases in HCT volume.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis US population-based retrospective cohort study includes patients who received transplants from January 2009 to December 2018. Data collection and cleaning occurred from February 2019 to November 2021, and data analysis occurred from January 2022 to October 2023. Method 1 restricted the analysis to Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) reporting areas for cases and transplants. Method 2 applied SEER age-, race-, and ethnicity-specific incidence rates to corresponding US census population and included all transplants reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Race and ethnicity groups were hierarchically defined as Hispanic (any race), non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Other (Asian and American Indian).ExposureReceipt of HCT.Main Outcomes and MeasuresUtilization rate of autologous or allogeneic HCT for patients with hematologic cancers by age, race, and ethnicity.ResultsFrom 2009 to 2018, 136 280 HCTs were analyzed for 6 hematologic cancers comprising 16.7% pediatric/adolescent/young adults (0-39 years), 83.3% adults (40-84 years), 58% male, 10.3% Hispanic, 11.4% non-Hispanic Black, 3.8% non-Hispanic Other, and 74.5% non-Hispanic White patients, with 49 385 allogeneic and 86 895 autologous HCTs performed. HCT utilization increased over time for all disease, age, race, and ethnic groups. From 2017 to 2018, adult (40-84 years) allogeneic transplant utilization for acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) was similar for Hispanic and non-Hispanic White or Other patients but was lower for non-Hispanic Black patients (acute myeloid leukemia: 19% vs 13%; MDS: 9%-10% vs 5%). Similarly, autologous transplant utilization for lymphoma was similar for all race and ethnicity groups; however, autologous transplant for multiple myeloma was highest for non-Hispanic White patients and lower for all other groups (31% vs 26%-27%). In patients aged 0 to 39 years, utilization of allogeneic transplant for acute lymphoblastic leukemia was highest in Hispanic patients, followed by non-Hispanic White, Black, and Other races (acute lymphoblastic leukemia: 19%, 18%, 17%, and 16%, respectively).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of autologous and allogeneic transplant utilization for hematologic cancers, disparities persisted for non-Hispanic Black patients. Hispanic, non-Hispanic Other, and younger age groups had increased utilization over time that was on par with non-Hispanic White patients in the most recent cohort.

7508 Background: Idecabtagene vicleucel (Ide-cel) has demonstrated excellent efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, outcomes in patients with extramedullary disease (EMD) remain to be better characterized. Methods: We included patients from 11 US academic centers, who were evaluated for EMD and were infused with ide-cel between May 2021 and April 2023. Patients with soft tissue or visceral lesions non-contiguous from bony lesions were classified as having true EMD, with paraskeletal disease classified as non-EMD. Disease responses were evaluated using the IMWG criteria. Time-to-event analyses were performed from the date of ide-cel infusion. Results: Among 351 patients with RRMM treated with ide-cel, 84 (24%) had EMD prior to infusion. Median follow-up for the entire cohort was 18.2 months (95% CI: 17-19.3). Baseline characteristics at ide-cel infusion for EMD and non-EMD cohorts are depicted in the table. For the EMD and non-EMD cohorts, the Day 30 objective response rates (ORR) were 58% vs. 69% (p=0.1), Day 30 ≥complete response rates were 16% vs 24% (p=0.11), the Day 90 ORR were 52% vs 82% (p<0.001), and best ORR were 58% vs 82%, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.1-6.9) for the EMD cohort vs. 11.1 months (95% CI: 9.2-12.6; p<0.0001) for the non-EMD cohort. The median duration of response for EMD among day 30 responders was 6.4 months (95% CI: 5.1-8.4). In a multivariable analysis, EMD was an independent predictor of inferior PFS [hazard ratio 1.8 (95% CI: 1.2-2.5), p<0.001] after adjusting for ECOG status, revised ISS stage, penta-drug refractoriness, elevated ferritin, prior BCMA-directed therapy and use of bridging therapy. Pattern of progression in the EMD cohort (n=68/84) included EMD site only (21%), hematologic only (22%), or both (57%), with comparable PFS for type of progression (p=0.19). The median overall survival (OS) was 14.8 months [95% CI: 9-Not reached (NR)] for EMD and 26.9 months [95% CI: 26.3 vs NR, p=0.006)] for the non-EMD group. Rates of Grade ≥2 cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity syndrome were comparable between the two cohorts. Conclusions: Patients with EMD demonstrate significantly inferior Day 90 ORR and presence of EMD is an independent risk factor for inferior PFS. [Table: see text]

Abstract Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Despite extensive data supporting its use, outcomes stratified by race and ethnicity groups are limited. Here, we report clinical outcomes with axi-cel in patients with R/R LBCL by race and ethnicity in both real-world and clinical trial settings. In the real-world setting, 1290 patients who received axi-cel between 2017 and 2020 were identified from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research database; 106 and 169 patients were included from the ZUMA-1 and ZUMA-7 trials, respectively. Overall survival was consistent across race/ethnicity groups. However, non-Hispanic (NH) Black patients had lower overall response rate (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22-0.63) and lower complete response rate (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97) than NH White patients. NH Black patients also had a shorter progression-free survival vs NH White (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.04-1.90) and NH Asian patients (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.08-2.59). NH Asian patients had a longer duration of response than NH White (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.94) and Hispanic patients (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.97). There was no difference in cytokine release syndrome by race/ethnicity; however, higher rates of any-grade immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome were observed in NH White patients than in other patients. These results provide important context when treating patients with R/R LBCL with CAR T-cell therapy across different racial and ethnic groups. ZUMA-1 and ZUMA-7 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: #NCT02348216 and #NCT03391466, respectively) are registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Introduction: Lymphodepletion (LD) chemotherapy is critical for the efficacy of CAR-T therapy by eradicating immunosuppressive cells, inducing costimulatory molecules, and promoting expansion and persistence of CAR-T cells. It also can contribute to an increased risk of infections, cytopenia, and other toxicities. We evaluated the utilization of varying LD regimens used in standard-of-care (SOC) autologous B-cell maturation antigen-directed (BCMA) CAR-T therapy with ide-cel or cilta-cel for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and the effect on outcomes and toxicity. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from patients with RRMM who underwent LD and CAR-T cell infusion by December 31, 2022, from 13 US academic institutions with SOC ide-cel or cilta-cel. Response rates and other categorical variables, specifically LD regimen, were tested for association using Wilcoxon rank-sum (or Kruskal-Wallis for three or more groups) or Fisher's exact tests, respectively. Results: A total of 523 patients were infused at the time of data cut-off with 489 patients evaluable for safety and survival analyses; 368 (75%) were infused with ide-cel and 121 (25%) with cilta-cel. The median age was 65 years old (range 30-90) with 206 females (42%) and 283 males (58%), and 13% with ECOG performance status ≥ 2 at time of LD. Fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (Flu/Cy) LD was used in 422 patients while 67 patients received other LD regimens including bendamustine-based (n = 35, 52%), cladribine-based (n = 25, 37%) or cyclophosphamide alone (n = 7, 10%). The primary reason for use of Flu/Cy LD was institutional guidance or SOC in 378 patients (90%), while the primary reason for use of other LD regimens was due to the fludarabine shortage in 65 patients (97%) with 3% citing physician's choice or institutional guidance. No significant difference was identified among response outcomes, with those receiving Flu/Cy LD achieving an ORR of 84% compared to 81% with other LD regimens (p = 0.59) and no difference observed in rates of ≥ VGPR (66% Flu/Cy LD vs 60% other LD; p = 0.48). Of those evaluable for MRD at 1 and 3 months, the MRD negative rate at 10 -6 for those with Flu/Cy LD was 77% (n= 137) and 77% (n=113) and with other LD regimens was 66% (n=35) and 79% (n=28), respectively. At a median follow-up of 9.7 months, no statistically significant difference was noted in median progression free survival (mPFS) with Flu/Cy vs other LD regimens (9.3 mos vs NR) or overall survival (OS) (19.4 mos vs NR). When stratified by type of CAR-T therapy, treatment with bendamustine-based LD was associated with an inferior mPFS compared to those receiving Flu/Cy LD in patients treated with ide-cel (3.8 vs 8.5 mos; p=0.0056), though not by multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis of patients treated with ide-cel between Flu/Cy and bendamustine LD did not reveal any significant differences in age, gender, ECOG, R-ISS stage, extramedullary disease, high-risk cytogenetics or renal dysfunction (Cr &lt; 45 ml/min). LD regimen was not a predictor for PFS on multivariable analyses amongst patients treated with ide-cel, while ECOG ≥ 3 (hazard ratio [HR]= 4.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.40, 14.08) and t(4,14) (HR= 2.02, 95% CI=1.14, 3.59) were associated with worse PFS. No difference in mPFS by LD regimen was observed in patients receiving cilta-cel, which was a smaller cohort (mPFS: Flu/Cy 11.7 mos, bendamustine-based NR, cladribine-based NR, cyclophosphamide NR). Rates of all grade CRS (81% vs 70%), Grade ≥ 3 CRS (3% vs 3%), all grade ICANS (19% vs 12%, and Grade ≥ 3 ICANS (4% vs 2%) were similar among those receiving Flu/Cy or other LD regimens, respectively. Patients receiving Flu/Cy LD were less likely to have any grade cytopenia at 1 month (33% vs 55%, p &lt; 0.001) and 3 months (52% vs 69%, p &lt; 0.001), with no observed difference in infection rate. Conclusions: The fludarabine shortage experienced in the US in late 2022 necessitated the use of alternative LD regimens with BCMA-directed CAR-T therapy with most centers relying on bendamustine- or cladribine-based regimens. Use of bendamustine-based LD was associated with inferior PFS in patients receiving ide-cel on univariate analysis, but not on multivariate analysis after adjusting for other prognostic factors. In summary, there is no clear difference in efficacy or safety between Flu/Cy and non-Flu/Cy LD in patients receiving BCMA-directed CAR-T therapy. *Authors contributed equally

Abstract Background and Rationale: Axi-cel is a standard-of-care treatment for relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy. Some patients who would have been ineligible for ZUMA-1 criteria due to comorbidities have been treated with axi-cel in the real-world setting. We interrogated a large registry of patients treated with standard-of-care axi-cel for a definitive report on the impact of age or certain comorbidities on safety and efficacy outcomes after axi-cel infusion. Methods: From October 2017 to August 2020, 1500 patients were enrolled in the postapproval safety observational study of axi-cel treated at 79 centers. Patients eligible for the protocol and followed up for at least 6 months with complete data entry by the time of analyses were included. One patient rescinded consent and 1 was deemed ineligible. Patients previously treated with immune effector cell therapy (n=31), with incomplete follow-up reporting (n=92), or alive but last contacted &lt;180 days postinfusion (n=32) were excluded from analysis. Main efficacy outcomes included complete and objective response rates (CR and ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS). Safety endpoints of interest included cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Outcomes were assessed and compared by age and preselected coexisting disease or organ impairment within 3 months prior to the infusion included in the hematopoietic cell transplantation comorbidity index. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression models were used to assess the impact of age or coexistent organ dysfunction on outcomes via odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and their 95% CIs. Results A total of 1343 patients were included in the analysis with a median 25.1 months (range, 10.3-42.7 months) for potential follow-up, defined from infusion to data cutoff date, and a median 11.8 months (range, 0.1-38.8 months) for actual follow-up time, defined from infusion to date of death or last contact. Of these, 38% were 65 years or older (median 62 years), 4% had a performance score ≥2, 13% had cardiac comorbidities, 16% had a prior cancer, 9% were obese, 2% had moderate to severe hepatic comorbidities, and 2% had renal comorbidities. Transformed lymphoma, double or triple-hit by fluorescence in situ hybridization, prior autologous transplant and refractory disease were present in 28%, 15%, 27% and 66%, respectively. Bridging therapy was administered in 21% of patients. Overall, ORR was 74%, (CR 56%), and probabilities of DOR, PFS, and OS at 18 months were 61% (95% CI, 57-65%), 42% (95% CI, 39-45%) and 52% (95% CI, 49-55%), respectively. Overall rates of CRS and ICANS were 83% and 55%, respectively. ORR was 78% (CR 62%, median OS 17.5 [95% CI, 16.0-not evaluated (NE)] months) for patients ≥65 years, ORR 57% (CR 29%; median OS 4.3 [95% CI, 2.5-8.3] months) for patients with hepatic dysfunction, ORR 70% (CR 43%; median OS 8.9 [95% CI, 3.8-NE] months) for patients with renal dysfunction; and ORR 47% (CR 20%, median OS 4 [95% CI, 2.6-6.9] months) for patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2 or 3. Multivariate analyses indicated that advanced age (≥65 years vs &lt;65 years; OR 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.83), moderate to severe pulmonary disease (yes vs no; OR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98), and ECOG (2-3 vs 0-1; OR 0.31, 95% CI, 0.18-0.53) impacted ORR (Table). Age ≥65 years did not have an impact on survival (HR 1.05, 95% CI, 0.88-1.26), although it was associated with CRS (OR 1.42, 95% CI, 1.03-1.96) and ICANS (OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.39-2.28). Coexistent cardiac disease (HR 1.44, 95% CI, 1.12-1.83), renal disease (HR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.32-3.46) and hepatic dysfunction (HR 2.65, 95% CI, 1.69-4.14) had an impact on OS, but not on response, CRS, and ICANS. ECOG significantly impacted all efficacy outcomes. None of the other comorbidities tested significantly impacted outcomes. Conclusion: Advanced age (≥65 years) was not associated with worse efficacy outcomes after axi-cel, despite higher rates of CRS and ICANS, which require closer monitoring. Performance status rather than age should be accounted for in patient selection and treatment decisions with axi-cel. Most coexistent organ dysfunctions have no clinically significant impact on axi-cel objective response and safety outcomes. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Locke: Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; EcoR1: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Cowen: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role. Jacobson: Axis: Speakers Bureau; Nkarta: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Lonza: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Humanigen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau. Ma: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Dong: Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Hu: Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Siddiqi: BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncternal: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Ahmed: Seagen: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Ghobadi: Atara: Consultancy; Wugen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Miklos: Pharmacyclics: Patents & Royalties; Kite, a Gilead Company, Amgen, Atara, Wugen, Celgene, Novartis, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Bioscience, Adicet, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Takeda, Adaptive Biotechnologies and Miltenyi Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics, Amgen, Kite, a Gilead Company, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Becton Dickinson, Isoplexis, Miltenyi, Juno-Celgene-Bristol Myers Squibb, Allogene, Precision Biosciences, Adicet, Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Novartis, Juno/Celgene-BMS, Kite, a Gilead Company, Pharmacyclics-AbbVie, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AlloGene, Precision Bioscience, Miltenyi Biotech, Adicet, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin: Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Legend: Consultancy; Vineti: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy; Gamida Cell: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Perales: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; MorphoSys: Honoraria; NexImmune: Honoraria; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Medigene: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Equilium: Honoraria. Lunning: Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Acrotech: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Hill: Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Xu: Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership ; Kite, A Gilead Company: Current Employment. Pasquini: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding.

7552 Background: Axi-cel is approved in the US for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory LBCL after 2 or more lines of systemic therapy. Post-market long term follow up study of commercial Axi-cel recipients using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research was recently completed. Methods: From October 2017 to August 2020, 1,500 Axi-cel recipients from 79 centers were enrolled. Of these, 1001 patients with at least 6 months of follow-up were included in this analysis. Outcomes include complete and overall responses rates (CR and ORR), duration of response (DOR), progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (Lee D 2014 and American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy [ASTCT]), immune effector cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), hematologic recovery and subsequent neoplasm (SN). Subgroup analysis by sensitivity to therapy, defined as responsive to the last line of therapy prior to Axi-cel. Median follow-up was 12 months (range, 6-28 months). Results: The median age overall was 62 years, 37% were ≥ 65 years, 83% with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score 0-1, 28% with transformed lymphoma, 14% with high grade lymphoma, 29% with prior autologous transplant, and 66% with chemotherapy-resistant disease prior to Axi-cel. The median time from diagnosis to Axi-cel infusion was 15 months. Best ORR was 70% (CR 53%). Landmark analysis of patients in CR at 6 months post Axi-cel demonstrates a low number of subsequent progression/death events. With respect to outcomes for chemotherapy-sensitive disease versus resistant disease, the ORR, CR, 12-month PFS and OS were 78% vs. 66%, 60% vs. 48%, 55% (95% CI, 48-62%) vs. 40% (95% CI, 37-44%), and 70% (95% CI, 63-76%) vs. 54% (95% CI, 50-58%), respectively. CRS of any grade was reported in 83% of patients. Incidence of Grades ≥ 3 CRS was 10% according to Lee et al 2014, and 13% according to ASTCT Consensus Grading. Median time to any grade CRS was 4 days (range, 1-28 days), and 93% of CRS cases resolved with a median duration of 7 days (range, 1-121 days). ICANS were reported in 576 (57%) patients, grade >3 was 26%. The median time to onset of ICANS was 7 days (range, 1-82 days), and 86% resolved with a median duration of 9 days (range, 1 to 115 days). Twenty-nine patients (2.9%) reported SN: hematologic (N = 17), solid tumors (N = 12). Conclusions: This is the largest report on Axi-cel in the real-world setting and demonstrates consistent efficacy outcomes and further characterizes safety outcomes. Patients in CR at 6 months have sustained disease control with low number of relapse events. Although patients with therapy-sensitive disease experience better outcomes than patients with therapy-resistant, the overall outcomes on both groups of patients are favorable.