The Impact of Bridging Therapy Prior to CAR-T Cell Therapy on Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Relapsed Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Authors: Lutfi Forat , Kansagra Ankit , Mustafa Ali Moaath , Bukhari Ali , Siglin Jonathan , Yan Jingsheng , Samanta Santanu , Holtzman Noa G. , Gottlieb David , Kim Dong Won , Lee Seung-Tae , Kocoglu Mehmet Hakan , Yared Jean A. , Hardy Nancy M. , Molitoris Jason , Mohindra Pranshu , Rapoport Aaron P. , Dahiya Saurabh 
Published: November 2020

Introduction:Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has become an important treatment modality for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). However, many of these patients have aggressive disease and require a form of bridging therapy (BT) for disease control during CAR-T manufacturing. There is limited data in the literature on the most appropriate form of BT and the impact of BT on clinical outcomes.

Methods:We retrospectively analyzed data on 75 patients that received CAR-T therapy at our institution. BT was defined as therapy administered between apheresis and CAR-T infusion. 52 patients received bridging therapy (BT) and 23 did not receive BT (NBT). BT included 10 high dose (HD) steroids, 28 chemotherapy-based regimen (CT), and 14 radiation therapy (RT). CT included cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy. IRB approval was obtained for this study. Statistical analysis was conducted with SAS v9.4. Univariate analysis Cox proportional hazard model was used and p-values for response rate were generated from Fisher's exact test. The methods of generalized linear model and logistic regression were used to associate the toxicity grades and cytopenias with BT, respectively.

Results:Many patient and disease characteristics between BT and NBT groups were similar, with minor, non-statistically significant differences (See Fig. 1a). Although while the incidence of stage III/IV patients in the BT and NBT group was comparable (p=0.79), in subgroup analysis, there were significantly more stage III/IV patients in the CT subgroup and NBT than in the RT and HD steroids subgroups (p=0.03). There was a higher incidence of bulky disease (≥10cm) in the BT and all BT subgroups versus (vs) NBT, although this was not significant (p=0.58 and p=0.92). The number of prior lines of therapy was comparable between the BT and NBT groups (p=0.99). However, in subgroup analysis there were significantly more patients in the CT subgroup and NBT that received ≥4 lines of therapy compared with RT and HD steroids subgroups (p=0.02).

There was no significant difference in overall response rate (ORR) at last follow up between BT vs NBT and BT subgroups vs NBT with approximately 50% being in complete remission in all cases (p=0.48 and p=0.54). Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar in the BT vs NBT (one-year rates of 67% vs 64% and 83% vs 75%, respectively) and this was not statistically significant (p=0.52 and 0.89), see Fig. 1b and 1c. In subgroup analysis PFS was comparable in the BT subgroups (CT 69% and HD steroids 68%) vs NBT group (67%) while RT was lower (51%), although this was not statistically significant (p=0.54). In subgroup analysis OS was slightly worse in the BT subgroups (CT 77%, RT 76%, and HD steroids 72%) vs NBT group (83%) although was not statistically significant (p=0.93).

The development of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was comparable in the BT vs NBT group and in BT subgroups vs NBT (p=0.18 and p=0.53). The median grade of immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) was higher in BT than NBT (grade 2 vs 0) and trended towards statistical significance (p=0.09). The development of cytopenias at day +180 following CAR-T therapy was significantly higher in BT (50%) vs NBT (13.3%) and was statistically significant (p= 0.038). Subgroup analysis also showed significantly increased cytopenias at day +180 in CT (58.3%) and RT (57.1%) subgroups (p= 0.04).

Conclusion:In our single-institution experience, BT prior to CAR-T therapy is feasible and may preserve CAR-T candidacy in patients with rapidly progressive LBCL. BT does not appear to significantly affect ORR, PFS, and OS. The incidence of CRS was comparable, although there was a higher incidence of ICANS in BT, which trended towards significance, and could be contributed to higher tumor bulk in the BT group. BT patients receiving CT and RT for BT were more likely to experience prolonged cytopenias, likely due to the myelosuppressive impact of BT and previous lines of chemo-immunotherapy agents. In conclusion, in high-risk patients with advanced and/or aggressive disease, BT may provide disease stabilization to CAR-T with a similar toxicity profile compared to NBT patients, although BT patients are more likely to experience prolonged cytopenias after CAR-T therapy.

Disclosures

Kansagra: Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb /Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Pharmacyclics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Karyopharm Therpeutics:Other: Advisory Board.Hardy:Incyte Corporation:Other: Advisory Board Member;American Gene Technologies:Other: DSMB Member;Kite/Gilead:Other: Advisory Board Member.