Outcomes and Toxicities of Programmed Death‐1 (PD‐1) Inhibitors in Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients in the United States: A Real‐World, Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND:Although classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is highly curable, 20%-30% of patients will not be cured with conventional treatments. The programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors (PD-1i) nivolumab and pembrolizumab have been Food and Drug Administration-approved for relapsed/refractory (R/R) cHL. There is limited data on the real-world experience with PD-1i in cHL and it is unknown whether fewer selected patients treated with PD-1i derive benefits similar to those observed in published trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We performed a multicenter, retrospective analysis of R/R cHL patients treated with PD-1i in the nontrial setting. The primary objective was to describe progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in this population. Secondary objectives were to characterize response rates, toxicities, discontinuation patterns, and post-PD-1i therapies. RESULTS:The study included 53 patients from nine U.S. centers. Overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), and partial response (PR) to PD-1i were 68%, 45%, and 23%, respectively. Twelve-month OS and PFS were 89% and 75%, respectively; median PFS was 29 months. Ninety-six percent of patients with CR continue to respond at a median follow-up of 20 months. Toxicities were similar to those previously described. Seventy percent of patients treated with systemic therapy after PD-1i demonstrated objective responses. CONCLUSION:To our knowledge, this analysis is the first describing real-world experience with PD-1i in cHL patients in the U.S. Here, we demonstrate similar response rates compared to prior studies. The toxicity profile of PD-1i was similar to that seen in previous studies; we further describe toxicity patterns in those with prior autoimmune disease or allogeneic transplant. Post-PD-1i systemic therapies appear active. These results support the effectiveness and tolerability of PD-1i therapy in R/R cHL in a real-world setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:Two PD-1 inhibitors have recently been approved for patients with relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma based on results from nonrandomized clinical trials. However, to date, there have been no studies evaluating the effectiveness and toxicity profile of these drugs in the real-world setting in the U.S. The present study demonstrates that patients treated in a real-world context experience similar rates of overall effectiveness compared with published clinical trials. Patients who discontinue PD-1 inhibitors may experience clinical responses to subsequent treatment with systemic chemotherapy or targeted therapy. This study provides clinicians with further insight into the effectiveness and tolerability of PD-1 inhibitors and suggests that when patients progress while on these drugs, conventional systemic chemotherapy may be an effective treatment option

Experience with Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (Axi-cel) in Patients with Secondary CNS Involvement: Results from the US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium

Introduction: Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (axi-cel), a CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, was approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma in October, 2017. In the ZUMA-1 trial leading to axi-cel FDA approval, patients (pts) with prior or active secondary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma involvement were excluded. A recent publication of 8 pts with secondary CNS lymphoma who underwent Tisagenlecleucel CAR T cell therapy was reported (Frigault M.J.2019). Since the two FDA approved CAR T cell products have a different neurotoxicity profile, understanding outcomes of axi-cel in this setting is important. We report here the real-world experience of 17 pts treated with axi-cel who had a history of secondary CNS involvement or had active CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion. Methods: Seventeen academic centers from the US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium contributed data independently from the manufacturer. Data regarding secondary CNS involvement, management, and outcome were obtained in addition to CAR T therapy outcome for pts who were identified as having active, secondary CNS involvement at the time of evaluation for CAR-T therapy. Nine centers reported data on 17 cases with CNS involvement. Follow-up data was missing for one pt in the CNS cohort. Lee criteria or the modified Lee grading scale were used for cytokine release syndrome (CRS). CTCAEv4 or CARTOX grading were used for immune effector cells associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). All leukapheresed pts were included in the intention to treat (ITT) analysis for response rate and event-free survival (EFS). EFS was defined as date of leukapheresis until progression or death due to any cause. EFS was evaluated using Kaplan Meier curves with log-rank test. Differences in clinical characteristics and response between CNS and non-CNS pts were not formally tested due to small sample size and multiple comparison concerns. Results: With a data cut-off of 4/30/2019, 300 pts underwent leukapheresis with intention to manufacture standard of care axi-cel. By the time of leukapheresis, 17 (6%) had secondary CNS involvement (4 parenchymal disease, 10 leptomeningeal/CSF, 3 data not available). Compared to the non-CNS cohort, baseline demographics were comparable (Panel A). Manufactured axi-cel was within specification for 100% of the CNS cohort. There was a higher rate of bridging therapy use in the CNS cohort 82% (1 steroids only, 2 radiation therapy, 12 systemic therapy) vs 52% in non-CNS cohort; p=0.022. Time from leukapheresis to CAR T infusion was 3.5 days longer in the CNS cohort as opposed to the non-CNS cohort: median time of 29.5 (range 20-76) vs. 26 days (range 5-67), (p=0.029), respectively. The CAR T infusion rate was 88% for the CNS cohort (15/17) compared to 93% (262/283) in the non-CNS cohort. Among the 15 infused pts in the CNS cohort, 10 had resolution of CNS involvement, and 5 had persistent active CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion. After axi-cel infusion, the incidence of CRS and ICANS, of any grade or grade 3 or higher, were comparable between the CNS and non-CNS cohorts. Tocilizumab and steroid use were comparable between the two groups (Panel B). No seizures or cerebral edema were noted in the CNS cohort. With a median follow-up of 10.1 months from leukapheresis (range 7.6-12.6), the ITT best overall response rates (CR+PR) and ongoing responses at month 6 between CNS and non-CNS cohorts were 75% vs. 59%, and 41% vs. 31%, respectively (Panel B). In the 5 pts with active CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion, the response of CNS disease were 2 CR, 1 PR and 2 PD as best response. In the 10 pts with resolved CNS disease at time of CAR T infusion, 2 PD were seen and both occurred systemically. EFS from leukapheresis was not statistically significantly different between CNS and non-CNS cohorts (6 months EFS: CNS cohort, 36%; non-CNS cohort 57%. HR=1.58, 95% CI: 0.83-3.01, p=0.16, Panel C). Six month EFS from the date of infusion for the CNS cohort was 49.9% (Panel D). Conclusions: Pts attempting CAR T therapy with secondary CNS disease in the real world setting had similar rates of CAR T infusion, toxicity, and outcomes when compared to patients without CNS disease. Small sample size and limited follow-up caution the strength of conclusions for application to clinical practice, but these results support further investigation of CAR T in pts with history of or active secondary CNS lymphoma. Figure Disclosures Bennani: Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Maurer:Celgene: Research Funding; Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jain:Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Chavez:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: 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; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cashen:Seattle Genetics: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Novartis: Other: Speaker's Bureau; Celgene: Other: Speaker's Bureau. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. McGuirk:Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Goy:COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding. Hill:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Vu:Celgene: Other: Stock. Andreadis:Genentech: Equity Ownership, Other: Spouse is Employee; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Munoz:Incyte: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics LLC an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend P

Standard-of-Care Axicabtagene Ciloleucel for Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Results From the US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is an autologous CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy approved for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) on the basis of the single-arm phase II ZUMA-1 trial, which showed best overall and complete response rates in infused patients of 83% and 58%, respectively. We report clinical outcomes with axi-cel in the standard-of-care (SOC) setting for the approved indication. Data were collected retrospectively from all patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL who underwent leukapheresis as of September 30, 2018, at 17 US institutions with the intent to receive SOC axi-cel. Toxicities were graded and managed according to each institution's guidelines. Responses were assessed as per Lugano 2014 classification. Of 298 patients who underwent leukapheresis, 275 (92%) received axi-cel therapy. Compared with the registrational ZUMA-1 trial, 129 patients (43%) in this SOC study would not have met ZUMA-1 eligibility criteria because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis. Among the axi-cel-treated patients, grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity occurred in 7% and 31%, respectively. Nonrelapse mortality was 4.4%. Best overall and complete response rates in infused patients were 82% (95% CI, 77% to 86%) and 64% (95% CI, 58% to 69%), respectively. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months from the time of CAR T-cell infusion, median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.0 to15.1 months), and median overall survival was not reached. Patients with poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 and elevated lactate dehydrogenase had shorter progression-free and overall survival on univariable and multivariable analysis. The safety and efficacy of axi-cel in the SOC setting in patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL was comparable to the registrational ZUMA-1 trial