Ana África Martín‐López

PURPOSE Approximately 30%-40% of patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) infused with CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells achieve durable responses. Consensus guidelines suggest avoiding bendamustine before apheresis, but specific data in this setting are lacking. We report distinct outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy according to previous bendamustine exposure. METHODS The study included CAR T-cell recipients from seven European sites. Safety, efficacy, and CAR T-cell expansion kinetics were analyzed according to preapheresis bendamustine exposure. Additional studies on the impact of the washout period and bendamustine dose were performed. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses were carried out for all efficacy comparisons between bendamustine-exposed and bendamustine-naïve patients. RESULTS The study included 439 patients with R/R LBCL infused with CD19-targeted commercial CAR T cells, of whom 80 had received bendamustine before apheresis. Exposed patients had significantly lower CD3 + cells and platelets at apheresis. These patients had a lower overall response rate (ORR, 53% v 72%; P < .01), a shorter progression-free survival (PFS, 3.1 v 6.2 months; P = .04), and overall survival (OS, 10.3 v 23.5 months; P = .01) in comparison with the bendamustine-naïve group. Following adjustment methods for baseline variables, these differences were mitigated. Focusing on the impact of bendamustine washout before apheresis, those with recent (<9 months) exposure (N = 42) displayed a lower ORR (40% v 72%; P < .01), shorter PFS (1.3 v 6.2 months; P < .01), and OS (4.6 v 23.5 months; P < .01) in comparison with bendamustine-naïve patients. These differences remained significant after IPTW and PSM analysis. Conversely, the cumulative dose of bendamustine before apheresis did not affect CAR-T efficacy outcomes. CONCLUSION Recent bendamustine exposure before apheresis was associated with negative treatment outcomes after CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy and should be therefore avoided in CAR T-cell candidates.

Abstract Over 60% of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B‐cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients who receive chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells will experience disease progression. There is no standard next line of therapy and information in this setting is scarce and heterogeneous. We analyzed 387 R/R LBCL patients who progressed after CAR T cells from July 2018 until March 2022 in Spain and the United Kingdom. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.3 months, with significant differences according to the interval between infusion and progression (<2 months [1.9 months], 2–6 months [5.2 months], and >6 months [not reached]). After progression, 237 (61%) patients received treatment. Focusing on the first subsequent therapy, overall (complete) response rates were 67% (38%) for polatuzumab–bendamustine–rituximab (POLA), 51% (36%) for bispecific antibodies (BsAb), 45% (35%) for radiotherapy (RT), 33% (26%) for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), 25% (0%) for lenalidomide (LENA), and 25% (14%) for chemotherapy (CT). In terms of survival, 12‐month progression‐free survival and OS was 36.2% and 51.0% for POLA, 32.0% and 50.1% for BsAb, 30.8% and 37.5% for RT, 29.9% and 27.8% for ICI, 7.3% and 20.8% for LENA, and 6.1% and 18.3% for CT. Thirty‐two (14%) patients received an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant with median OS not reached after a median follow‐up of 15.1 months. In conclusion, patients with R/R LBCL who progress within the first 2 months after CAR T‐cell therapy have dismal outcomes. Novel targeted agents, such as polatuzumab and BsAbs, can achieve prolonged survival after CAR T‐cell therapy failure.

ABSTRACT: The efficacies of chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-Ts) and bispecific monoclonal antibodies (BiAbs) for triple-class refractory (TCR) myeloma have not previously been compared, and clinical data on how to rescue patients after relapse from these immunotherapies are limited. A retrospective study of 73 TCR patients included in trials was conducted: 36 received CAR-Ts and 37 received BiAbs. CAR-Ts produced a higher overall response rate (ORR) than BiAbs (97.1% vs 56.8%, P = .002). After a median of follow-up of 18.7 months, no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) was observed between the CAR-T and BiAbs groups (16.6 vs 10.8 months; P = .090), whereas overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the CAR-T than in the BiAbs group (49.2 vs 22.6 months; P = .021). BiAbs after CAR-Ts yielded a higher ORR and longer PFS2 than did nonredirecting T-cell therapies after CAR-Ts (ORR: 87.5% vs 50.0%; PFS2: 22.9 vs 12.4 months). By contrast, BiAbs after BiAbs resulted in an ORR of 33% and PFS2 of 8.4 months, which was similar to that produced by the nonredirecting T-cell therapies (ORR: 28.6%; PFS2: 8.1 months). Although this is a pooled analysis of different trials with different products and the patient profile is different for CAR-Ts and BiAbs, both were effective therapies for TCR myeloma. However, in our experience, although the PFS was similar with the 2 approaches, CAR-T therapy resulted in better OS, mainly because of the efficacy of BiAbs as rescue therapy. Our results highlight the importance of treatment sequence in real-word experience.

Abstract Bridging therapy (BT) after leukapheresis is required in most relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B‐cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. Bendamustine‐containing regimens are a potential BT option. We aimed to assess if this agent had a negative impact on CAR‐T outcomes when it was administered as BT. We included R/R LBCL patients from six centers who received systemic BT after leukapheresis from February 2019 to September 2022; patients who only received steroids or had pre‐apheresis bendamustine exposure were excluded. Patients were divided into two BT groups, with and without bendamustine. Separate safety and efficacy analyses were carried out for axi‐cel and tisa‐cel. Of 243 patients who received BT, bendamustine (benda) was included in 62 (26%). There was a higher rate of BT progressors in the non‐benda group (62% vs. 45%, p = 0.02). Concerning CAR‐T efficacy, complete responses were comparable for benda versus non‐benda BT cohorts with axi‐cel (70% vs. 53%, p = 0.12) and tisa‐cel (44% vs. 36%, p = 0.70). Also, 12‐month progression‐free and overall survival were not significantly different between BT groups with axi‐cel (56% vs. 43% and 71% vs. 63%) and tisa‐cel (25% vs. 26% and 52% vs. 48%); there were no differences when BT response was considered. CAR T‐cell expansion for each construct was similar between BT groups. Regarding safety, CRS G ≥3 (6% vs. 6%, p = 0.79), ICANS G ≥3 (15% vs. 17%, p = 0.68), severe infections, and neutropenia post‐infusion were comparable among BT regimens. BT with bendamustine‐containing regimens is safe for patients requiring disease control during CAR T‐cell manufacturing.