Plain language summary of the TRANSFORM study primary analysis results:liso-cell as a second treatment regimen for large B-cell lymphoma following failure of the first treatment regimen

What is this summary about?People diagnosed with a disease called large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) may experience return, or early relapse, of their disease within the first year after receiving and responding to their first (first-line) treatment regimen. Others may have primary refractory disease, meaning that the disease either did not respond to first-line treatment at all or only responded for a very brief period. Second (second-line) treatment includes immunotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT, which has the potential to cure LBCL. However, if the disease does not respond to immunotherapy, people cannot receive ASCT, and less than 30% of people are cured.Therefore, new second-line treatment options are required, such as CAR T cell therapy, which uses a person's own genetically engineered lymphocytes, also called T cells, to fight their lymphoma. In this article, we summarize the key results of the phase 3 TRANSFORM clinical study that tested if liso-cel, a CAR T cell treatment, can safely and effectively be used as a second-line treatment for people with early relapsed or primary refractory (relapsed/refractory) LBCL.A total of 184 adults with relapsed/refractory LBCL who were able to receive ASCT were randomly treated with either liso-cel or standard of care (SOC) as second-line treatment. SOC included immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT.What were the key takeaways?Almost all (97%) people in the liso-cel group completed treatment, whereas 53% of people in the SOC group did not complete treatment, mostly due to their disease not responding or relapsing, and therefore they were not able to receive ASCT. People who received liso-cel as a second-line treatment lived longer without the occurrence of an unfavorable medical event or worsening of the disease and had a better response to treatment than those who received SOC as second-line treatment. People who received liso-cel reported side effects that researchers considered to be manageable, and that were known to occur with CAR T cell treatment.What were the main conclusions reported by the researchers?Results from the TRANSFORM study support the use of liso-cel as a more effective second-line treatment compared with SOC that is safe for people with relapsed/refractory LBCL

Powering a Commercial Datalogger by Energy Harvesting from Generated Aeroacoustic Noise Powering a Commercial Datalogger by Energy Harvesting from Generated Aeroacoustic Noise

International audienceThis paper reports the experimental demonstration of a wireless sensor node only powered by an aeroacoustic energy harvesting device, meant to be installed on an aircraft outside skin. New results related to the physical characterization of the energy conversion process are presented. Optimized interface electronics has been designed, which allows demonstrating aeroacoustic power generation by supplying a commercial wireless datalogger in conditions representative of an actual flight

Health-related quality of life with lisocabtagene maraleucel vs standard of care in relapsed or refractory LBCL

Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) has shown promising efficacy in clinical trials for patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). We present health-related quality of life (HRQOL) results from the TRANSFORM study, the first comparative analysis of liso-cel vs standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy in this population. Adults with LBCL refractory or relapsed ≤12 months after first-line therapy and eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation were randomized 1:1 to the liso-cel or SOC arms (3 cycles of immunochemotherapy in which responders proceeded to high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation). HRQOL was assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – 30 items and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lymphoma subscale. Patients with baseline and ≥1 postbaseline assessment were analyzed (liso-cel, n = 47; SOC, n = 43). The proportion of patients with meaningful improvement in global health status/quality of life (QOL) was higher, whereas deterioration was lower in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm from day 126 to month 6. Mean change scores showed meaningful worsening in global health status/QOL at month 6, fatigue at day 29 and month 6, and pain at month 6 with SOC; mean scores for other domains were maintained or improved in both arms. Time to confirmed deterioration favored the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm in global health status/QOL (median: not reached vs 19.0 weeks, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.94). HRQOL was either improved or maintained from baseline in patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL in the liso-cel arm vs SOC arm as second-line treatment. This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT0357531

Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: primary analysis of the phase 3 TRANSFORM study

This global phase 3 study compared lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) with a standard of care (SOC) as second-line therapy for primary refractory or early relapsed (≤12 months) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Adults eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT; N = 184) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to liso-cel (100 × 106 chimeric antigen receptor–positive T cells) or SOC (3 cycles of platinum-based immunochemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy and ASCT in responders). The primary end point was event-free survival (EFS). In this primary analysis with a 17.5-month median follow-up, median EFS was not reached (NR) for liso-cel vs 2.4 months for SOC. Complete response (CR) rate was 74% for liso-cel vs 43% for SOC (P < .0001) and median progression-free survival (PFS) was NR for liso-cel vs 6.2 months for SOC (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.400; P < .0001). Median overall survival (OS) was NR for liso-cel vs 29.9 months for SOC (HR = 0.724; P = .0987). When adjusted for crossover from SOC to liso-cel, 18-month OS rates were 73% for liso-cel and 54% for SOC (HR = 0.415). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events occurred in 1% and 4% of patients in the liso-cel arm, respectively (no grade 4 or 5 events). These data show significant improvements in EFS, CR rate, and PFS for liso-cel compared with SOC and support liso-cel as a preferred second-line treatment compared with SOC in patients with primary refractory or early relapsed LBCL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03575351

Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Patients with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) primary refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line therapy are at high risk for poor outcomes with current standard of care, platinum-based salvage immunochemotherapy and autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), an autologous, CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, has previously demonstrated efficacy and manageable safety in third-line or later LBCL. In this Article, we report a prespecified interim analysis of liso-cel versus standard of care as second-line treatment for primary refractory or early relapsed (within 12 months after response to initial therapy) LBCL. METHODS TRANSFORM is a global, phase 3 study, conducted in 47 sites in the USA, Europe, and Japan, comparing liso-cel with standard of care as second-line therapy in patients with primary refractory or early (≤12 months) relapsed LBCL. Adults aged 18-75 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 or less, adequate organ function, PET-positive disease per Lugano 2014 criteria, and candidates for autologous HSCT were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of interactive response technology, to liso-cel (100 × 106 CAR+ T cells intravenously) or standard of care. Standard of care consisted of three cycles of salvage immunochemotherapy delivered intravenously-R-DHAP (rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, two infusions of cytarabine 2000 mg/m2 on day 2, and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1), R-ICE (rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1, ifosfamide 5000 mg/m2 on day 2, etoposide 100 mg/m2 on days 1-3, and carboplatin area under the curve 5 [maximum dose of 800 mg] on day 2), or R-GDP (rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 1, dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1)-followed by high-dose chemotherapy and autologous HSCT in responders. Primary endpoint was event-free survival, with response assessments by an independent review committee per Lugano 2014 criteria. Efficacy was assessed per intention-to-treat (ie, all randomly assigned patients) and safety in patients who received any treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03575351, and is ongoing. FINDINGS Between Oct 23, 2018, and Dec 8, 2020, 232 patients were screened and 184 were assigned to the liso-cel (n=92) or standard of care (n=92) groups. At the data cutoff for this interim analysis, March 8, 2021, the median follow-up was 6·2 months (IQR 4·4-11·5). Median event-free survival was significantly improved in the liso-cel group (10·1 months [95% CI 6·1-not reached]) compared with the standard-of-care group (2·3 months [2·2-4·3]; stratified hazard ratio 0·35; 95% CI 0·23-0·53; stratified Cox proportional hazards model one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (74 [80%] of 92 patients in the liso-cel group vs 46 [51%] of 91 patients in the standard-of-care group), anaemia (45 [49%] vs 45 [49%]), thrombocytopenia (45 [49%] vs 58 [64%]), and prolonged cytopenia (40 [43%] vs three [3%]). Grade 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurological events, which are associated with CAR T-cell therapy, occurred in one (1%) and four (4%) of 92 patients in the liso-cel group, respectively (no grade 4 or 5 events). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 44 (48%) patients in the liso-cel group and 44 (48%) in the standard-of-care group. No new liso-cel safety concerns were identified in the second-line setting. There were no treatment-related deaths in the liso-cel group and one treatment-related death due to sepsis in the standard-of-care group. INTERPRETATION These results support liso-cel as a new second-line treatment recommendation in patients with early relapsed or refractory LBCL. FUNDING Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company