Citations

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.

Background: Understanding the symptoms and quality of life (QOL) over time of adults with follicular lymphoma (FL) is important for treatment decision-making and clinical management. However, there are limited population-level data on the long-term QOL of adults with FL. We aim to describe the real-world, long-term QOL of adults with newly diagnosed FL up to 5/6 years after diagnosis. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic/Iowa Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) and the multi-institutional Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) to identify adults with grade 1-3A FL who completed QOL surveys at baseline and follow-up. Participants with lymphoma were prospectively enrolled within 9 months of diagnosis in the MER cohort from 2002-2015 and within 6 months of diagnosis in the multi-institutional LEO cohort study across 8 cancer centers from 2015-2020. The LEO/MER cohort studies systematically collected information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and functional assessment. Treatments, disease relapses, and deaths were verified by medical record review. Treating physicians determined clinical management. QOL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1, 2, 3, and 5/6 post-diagnosis. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better QOL across 4 subscales (range): physical (0-28), social/family (0-28), emotional (0-24), and functional (0-28) well-being. We categorized participants based on their frontline management at time of diagnosis: “observation” (surveillance), “treatment” (systemic treatment with immunotherapy +/- chemotherapy), and “local” (radiation) groups. We employed a generalized linear mixed model to evaluate and compare the changes in QOL scores (as a continuous variable) from baseline for the observation, treatment, and local groups, adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity, age, FLIPI risk, and cohort (i.e., LEO or MER). We also evaluated QOL changes by FLIPI risk. Results: Our study included 1,544 participants with FL and QOL data. At the time of enrollment, median age was 61 years (range 19-91), 88% were non-Hispanic White, and 49% were female. Based on initial management, 529 (34%) were in the observation group, 880 (57%) were in the treatment group, and 135 (9%) were in the local group. FLIPI risk was high for 17% in the observation group, 29.3% in the treatment group, and 3% in the local group. The mean (standard deviation) baseline FACT-G total score was lowest in the treatment group with the following baseline scores: 86 (13) for the observation group, 83 (14) for the treatment group, and 88 (12) for the local group (Table 1). The observation and local groups reported a greater worsening of their baseline FACT-G total score vs the treatment group at both the 2-year (-1.2, -0.8 vs +1.8, respectively) and 5/6 year (-5.4, -6 vs. -1.6, respectively) timepoints (Figure 1). This appeared to be driven by worsened physical and functional well-being in the observation (-1.3, -2.2, respectively) and local (-0.9, -2.4, respectively) groups vs the treatment group (0, -0.3, respectively). These differences were statistically significant between the observation vs treatment groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the other subscales, i.e., social/family and emotional well-being, by frontline management. Social/family well-being decreased across all groups by 5/6 years (-2.3 in observation, -2.2 in treatment, and -3 in local, p<0.05). Regardless of FLIPI risk, the total FACT-G scores decreased within each FLIPI risk group at 5/6 years (-4.4 for low, -3.8 for intermediate, and -4.9 for high, p<0.05). This was primarily due to worsened social/family well-being (-2.4 for low, -2.2 for intermediate, and -3 for high, p<0.05) at 5/6 years. There was no statistically significant difference in QOL between FLIPI risk groups. Conclusion: This is one of the first and largest studies with real-world longitudinal QOL data for FL. Our study suggests that frontline systemic treatment initially improved QOL and resulted in a lower degree of QOL decline over time. Social/family well-being decreased over time regardless of frontline management or FLIPI risk. Further research is warranted to explore the impact of timing and specific systemic treatments on QOL, incorporate the patient/caregiver experience to address social/family well-being, and identify the clinical significance of our findings.

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.

INTRODUCTION Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and SLL represent a single entity in current classifications per the WHO-HAEM5 and ICC. Both are characterized by malignant B cells with an identical immunophenotype, but they are distinguished by the predominant site of disease burden, such as peripheral blood for CLL and nodal compartments for SLL. Most clinical trials and retrospective studies involving CLL/SLL do not separate out SLL patients. In this study, we report reasons for treatment initiation and outcomes in a cohort of SLL patients seen at our institution. METHODS Using the Mayo Clinic CLL Database, we retrospectively identified patients with SLL who received first line therapy between 12/1995 and 2/2023. Patients were classified as having SLL if they met at least one of the following criteria for diagnosis: 1) presence of lymphadenopathy or splenomegaly (either by exam or scans) and an absolute clonal B cell count of < 5 x 109/L; or 2) presence of lymphadenopathy or splenomegaly (either by exam or scans) and an absolute lymphocyte count of < 11 x 109/L (if absolute clonal B cell count was not available). Although the presence of anemia (hemoglobin < 11 g/dL) and thrombocytopenia (platelets < 100 x 109/L) are considered as exclusion criteria for a diagnosis of SLL, patients were included if these cytopenia were due to autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) or immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) with < 50% bone marrow involvement by SLL (bone marrow biopsy confirmed). Patients treated for SLL with extranodal involvement were also included. Indications for SLL treatment were abstracted by chart review and included one of the following: 1) symptomatic or progressive lymphadenopathy and/or splenomegaly, 2) autoimmune cytopenias, 3) extranodal/direct organ infiltration; and 4) other (e.g., cryoglobulinemia, paraneoplastic, non-infiltrative renal disease such as minimal change disease). Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from treatment start until date of death or last known to be alive. Treatment-free survival (TFS) was defined as the time from treatment start until the earliest of date of next treatment, or death. Kaplan-Meier method was used to display OS and TFS. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate associations of factors with time-to-event outcomes. RESULTS We identified 182 patients with SLL who received first line treatment. The median age at treatment start was 66 years, and 132 (73%) were male. Unmutated IGHV was identified in 60/82 (73%) patients and peripheral blood fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) assessed pre-treatment start showed del13q in 10%, trisomy 12 in 43%, del11q in 7%, del17p in 8%, and no abnormalities in 33%. TP53 disruption (del17p and/or TP53 mutation) was present in 7/89 (8%) patients prior to first therapy. The median follow-up after diagnosis was 6.9 years. The indications for treatment were grouped as follows: symptomatic or progressive lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly (n=130), extranodal/direct organ infiltration (n=30), AIHA/ITP (n=10), and other (n=12). For the entire cohort, the median TFS was 2.9 years and the median OS was 12.3 years. The median TFS by the treatment indication groups were 3.3, 5.1, 1.6, and 5.3 years, respectively (Figure 1). The median OS by treatment indication groups were 11.1, 10.5, 8.8, and 19.9 years, respectively. Among the 160 patients with symptomatic or progressive lymphadenopathy/splenomegaly or extranodal disease, the treatments administered include: mAb alone (n=35), chemotherapy alone (n=33), chemoimmunotherapy (n=57), targeted agent (n=33; Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor [BTKi] based n=28; venetoclax-based n=3, BTKi + venetoclax n=2), and other (n=2). The median TFS by treatment groups were 2.4, 2.0, 3.8, and 6.0 years (Figure 2), respectively (excluding the small “other” subgroup of 2 patients). The median OS for these groups were 9.5, 9.7, 15.0, and not evaluable, respectively. Only older age at treatment start predicted for shorter TFS (HR 1.02; 95%CI 1.002-1.038; p=0.03) and shorter OS (HR 1.05; 95%CI 1.03-1.07; p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS In this study of patients with SLL who received therapy, the most frequent indications for treatment included symptomatic lymphadenopathy and/or splenomegaly, followed by extranodal disease. Trisomy 12 was the most frequently detected abnormality on peripheral blood FISH testing. Treatment with novel agents achieved durable TFS and OS.

339 Background: Limited health insurance literacy (HIL) has been linked to problems paying medical bills or delaying care among patients with cancer. In this study, we describe the prevalence and correlates of HIL in a cohort of cancer patients measured using a ten-question HIL quiz developed by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Methods: We examined HIL in 393 adult patients (aged >18 years) receiving cancer treatment in two ambulatory infusion centers, Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona (12/2019 to 2/2020 and 8/2020 to 10/2020) and University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi (9/2020 to 1/2021). HIL was categorized as low, moderate, or high based on the total number of correct answers: 0-4 (low), 5-6 (moderate), and 7-10 (high). Descriptive statistics characterized the sample and chi-square statistics compared HIL by sociodemographic factors. Results: Most patients understood basic insurance terms, such as premiums and deductibles (Table). However, fewer patients answered questions correctly about provider networks (46.1%), formularies (48.6%), and calculating out-of-pocket (OOP) spending (16.8%). 53 (13.5%), 69 (17.6%), and 271 (69.0%) patients had low, moderate, and high HIL scores, respectively. Lower HIL was more common among patients of younger age (<65 years: 17.8%, 65+ years: 8.7%), lower educational attainment (less than college: 23.2%; college or higher: 4.4%), and lower household income (<$4999: 21.1%, $5000+: 6.1%) (all p-values<0.05). Conclusions: Although HIL in our cohort of cancer patients was relatively high - 69% answered at least 7 questions correctly - there were gaps in understanding of provider networks, formularies, and calculation of OOP spending. Efforts to improve HIL and help with navigation of health insurance plans may be required, especially for socioeconomically vulnerable patients.[Table: see text]

Health insurance literacy (HIL) constructs are related to financial toxicity in patients with cancer.