Factors associated with durable remission after CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-modified T-cell immunotherapy for aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have not been identified. We report multivariable analyses of factors affecting response and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with aggressive NHL treated with cyclophosphamide and fludarabine lymphodepletion followed by 2 × 106 CD19-directed CAR T cells/kg. The best overall response rate was 51%, with 40% of patients achieving complete remission. The median PFS of patients with aggressive NHL who achieved complete remission was 20.0 months (median follow-up, 26.9 months). Multivariable analysis of clinical and treatment characteristics, serum biomarkers, and CAR T-cell manufacturing and pharmacokinetic data showed that a lower pre-lymphodepletion serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level and a favorable cytokine profile, defined as serum day 0 monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) and peak interleukin-7 (IL-7) concentrations above the median, were associated with better PFS. MCP-1 and IL-7 concentrations increased after lymphodepletion, and higher intensity of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine lymphodepletion was associated with higher probability of a favorable cytokine profile. PFS was superior in patients who received high-intensity lymphodepletion and achieved a favorable cytokine profile compared with those who received the same intensity of lymphodepletion without achieving a favorable cytokine profile. Even in high-risk patients with pre-lymphodepletion serum LDH levels above normal, a favorable cytokine profile after lymphodepletion was associated with a low risk of a PFS event. Strategies to augment the cytokine response to lymphodepletion could be tested in future studies of CD19 CAR T-cell immunotherapy for aggressive B-cell NHL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01865617.

No abstract

Background We reported durable responses to CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell therapy (JCAR014) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) patients (pts) after prior failure of ibrutinib (Turtle, JCO 2017; NCT01865617). In those pts, ibrutinib was not administered during CAR-T cell immunotherapy. Continuation of ibrutinib through leukapheresis, lymphodepletion and CAR-T cell therapy may prevent tumor progression after ibrutinib withdrawal, mobilize tumor into the blood, improve CAR-T cell function, and decrease cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Methods We conducted a phase 1/2 study of CD19 CAR-T cell immunotherapy in R/R CLL pts and established a regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine (Cy/Flu) lymphodepletion followed by JCAR014 at 2 x 106 CAR-T cells/kg (Turtle, JCO 2017). We then compared outcomes of these pts (No-ibr cohort) with a subsequent cohort that received Cy/Flu with 2 x 106/kg JCAR014 CAR-T cells with concurrent ibrutinib (420 mg/d) from at least 2 weeks prior to leukapheresis until at least 3 months after JCAR014 infusion (Ibr cohort). Dose reduction was permitted for toxicity. CRS was graded by consensus criteria (Lee, Blood 2014) and neurotoxicity and other adverse events were graded by CTCAE v4.03. Response was evaluated according to 2008 IWCLL criteria. Results Seventeen and 19 pts were treated in the Ibr and No-ibr cohorts, respectively. Pt characteristics were comparable (Table 1). Progression on ibrutinib was noted in 16 (94%) and 18 pts (95%) in the Ibr and No-ibr cohorts, respectively, and prior ibrutinib intolerance was reported in 1 pt in each cohort. The time to intolerance or failure of ibrutinib prior to treatment with JCAR014 was longer, and the pre-leukapheresis LDH was lower in the Ibr compared to the No-ibr cohort. The median follow-up in responders was 98 and 764 days in the Ibr and No-ibr cohorts, respectively. Administration of ibrutinib with Cy/Flu and JCAR014 was well tolerated in most pts; ibrutinib was reduced or discontinued in 6 pts (35%) at a median of 21 days after JCAR014 infusion. In the Ibr cohort, 1 pt with grade 2 CRS developed fatal presumed cardiac arrhythmia and 1 pt developed a subdural hematoma in the setting of trauma and thrombocytopenia. No differences in the incidences of grade ≥3 cytopenias were observed. Concurrent ibrutinib administration did not appear to affect the frequency or severity of neurotoxicity. Although the proportions of pts with grade ≥1 CRS were similar between cohorts (76% vs 89%, P = 0.39), the severity of CRS (grade ≥3 CRS: Ibr, 0%; No-Ibr, 26%; P = 0.05) and serum peak IL-8 (P = 0.04), IL-15 (P = 0.003) and MCP-1 (P = 0.004) concentrations were lower in the Ibr cohort. However, we found comparable CD8+ (P = 0.29) and higher CD4+ (P = 0.06) CAR-T cell counts in blood in the Ibr cohort. Sixteen pts (94%) and 18 pts (95%) in the Ibr and No-ibr cohorts, respectively, have completed response assessment. We observed a higher proportion of responders (complete and partial remission) by IWCLL criteria in the Ibr compared to the No-ibr cohort (88% vs 56%, respectively, P = 0.06). Ten of 12 pts (83%) with lymph node disease before treatment with Cy/Flu and JCAR014 in the Ibr cohort achieved CR or PR by IWCLL imaging criteria, compared to 10/17 pts (59%) in the No-ibr cohort (P = 0.23). The proportion of pts with pretreatment bone marrow (BM) disease who had no disease by flow cytometry after CAR-T cell immunotherapy was similar in the Ibr compared to the No-ibr cohort (75% vs 65%, P = 0.71). However, among pts with no disease by BM flow cytometry after CAR-T cell immunotherapy, a higher proportion of pts in the Ibr cohort had no malignant IGH sequences at 4 weeks (83% vs 60%, respectively, P = 0.35). We performed univariate logistic regression analysis for response by IWCLL criteria and variables with P < 0.10 were considered for stepwise multivariable analysis (Table 2). In the multivariable analysis, the Ibr cohort and a lower pre-treatment SUVmax on PET imaging were each associated with a higher probability of response by IWCLL criteria (Ibr cohort, OR = 14.02, 95%CI [0.52-379.61], P = 0.05; SUVmax, OR = 1.31 per SUV unit decrease, 95%CI [1.05-1.67], P < 0.001). Conclusion Administration of ibrutinib from 2 weeks before leukapheresis until 3 months after JCAR014 was well tolerated in most pts. This approach might decrease the incidence of severe CRS and improve responses in pts with R/R CLL. Disclosures Hirayama: DAVA Oncology: Honoraria. Hay:DAVA Oncology: Honoraria. Li:Juno Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Lymp:Juno Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Till:Mustang Bio: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Kiem:Magenta: Consultancy; Homology Medicine: Consultancy; Rocket Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Shadman:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Qilu Puget Sound Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Beigene: Research Funding; Mustang: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Cassaday:Merck: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Other: Spouse Employment, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Acharya:Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Teva: Honoraria. Riddell:Juno Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; NOHLA: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Maloney:GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Honoraria; Janssen Scientific Affairs: Honoraria. Turtle:Nektar Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics / Celgene: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Aptevo: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Eureka Therapeutics: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy.

Background: CAR T-cell therapy has revolutionized the treatment of patients with hematologic malignancies, but it can result in prolonged hospitalizations and serious toxicities. However, data on the impact of CAR T-cell therapy on healthcare utilization and end-of-life (EoL) outcomes are lacking. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 236 patients who received CAR T-cell therapy at 2 tertiary care centers from February 2016 through December 2019. We abstracted healthcare utilization and EoL outcomes from the electronic health record, including hospitalizations, receipt of ICU care, hospitalization and receipt of systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life, palliative care, and hospice referrals. Results: Most patients (81.4%; n=192) received axicabtagene ciloleucel. Overall, 28.1% of patients experienced a hospital readmission and 15.5% required admission to the ICU within 3 months of CAR T-cell therapy. Among the deceased cohort, 58.3% (49/84) were hospitalized and 32.5% (26/80) received systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life. Rates of palliative care and hospice referrals were 47.6% and 30.9%, respectively. In multivariable logistic regression, receipt of bridging therapy (odds ratio [OR], 3.15; P=.041), index CAR-T hospitalization length of stay >14 days (OR, 4.76; P=.009), hospital admission within 3 months of CAR T-cell infusion (OR, 4.29; P=.013), and indolent lymphoma transformed to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (OR, 9.83; P=.012) were associated with likelihood of hospitalization in the last 30 days of life. Conclusions: A substantial minority of patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy experienced hospital readmission or ICU utilization in the first 3 months after CAR T-cell therapy, and most deceased recipients of CAR T-cell therapy received intensive EoL care. These findings underscore the need for interventions to optimize healthcare delivery and EoL care for this population.

Modern medicine has developed an apparently unlimited array of diagnostic and therapeutic tools; for example, treatment options for patients with hematologic malignancies are expanding rapidly. These developments, offering a spectrum of modalities, provide a new outlook on successful treatment for many patients. Nontheless, decisions regarding the optimum treatment strategy for any individual patient remain challenging, given that all prognostic projections are based on statistics. The challenge lies in identifying parameters that characterize individual patients as prospective responders or nonresponders and thus determine the prognosis. Both physicians and patients are confronted with the uncertainty of the success of treatment with any strategy in a particular disease condition and with the impact of treatment on overall prognosis. How certain can a physician be that an individual patient has the best prognosis with a particular intervention? How does a physician's own uncertainty affect decisions made by a less-informed patient? Here we examine various aspects of uncertainty and their relevance in the process of medical decision making as briefly illustrated by 2 clinical scenarios of hematologic malignancies.