The Impact of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin (InO) Treatment on Brexucabtagene Autoleucel (Brexu-cel) Outcomes in Adults with Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL)
Authors: Aldoss Ibrahim , Roloff Gregory W , Advani Anjali S. , Kopmar Noam E. , Lin Chenyu , Dekker Simone E. , Gupta Vishal K , Jeyakumar Nikeshan , O'Connor Timothy E , Zhang Amy , Miller Katharine , Dykes Kaitlyn C , Ahmed Mohamed , Zambrano Hector , Bradshaw Danielle , Mercadal Santiago , Schwartz Marc , Tracy Sean , Dholaria Bhagirathbhai , Kubiak Michal , Mukherjee Akash , Majhail Navneet , Battiwalla Minoo , Mountjoy Luke , Malik Shahbaz A. , Mathews John , Shaughnessy Paul , Logan Aaron C. , Ladha Abdullah , Yaghmour George , Stefan Maryann , Guzowski Caitlin , Hoeg Rasmus T. , Hilal Talal , Moore Jozal , O'Dwyer Kristen M. , Tsai Stephanie B. , Sasine Joshua , Solh Melhem M. , Lee Catherine J. , Kota Vamsi K. , Koura Divya , Veeraputhiran Muthu , Blunk Betsy , Leonard Jessica T. , Oliai Caspian H. , Bachanova Veronika , Stock Wendy , Galal Ahmed , Pullarkat Vinod , Cassaday Ryan D , Shah Bijal D. , Faramand Rawan , Muffly Lori S. 
Published: December 2023

Cellular Immunotherapies: Late Phase and Commercially Available Therapies
The Impact of Inotuzumab Ozogamicin (InO) Treatment on Brexucabtagene Autoleucel (Brexu-cel) Outcomes in Adults with Relapsed/Refractory B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL)
Introduction: Brexu-cel is the first approved CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for adult patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (r/r) B-ALL. InO, an anti-CD22 antibody drug conjugate, is also approved for the same indication. With the accessibility to several targeted therapies in r/r B-ALL, the optimal sequence remains uncertain. The effect of prior treatment with InO on brexu-cel outcomes remains underreported, especially as a bridging therapy, as well as the effect of previous response to InO on post brexu-cel outcomes.
Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter analysis from 25 U.S. institutions of adults (≥18 years) with r/r B-ALL treated with commercial brexu-cel from 2021 to 2023 post FDA approval. Methodologies for assessing minimal residual disease (MRD) (minimal threshold of 10 -4) included flow cytometry, NGS, or qPCR depending on institutional practice. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from day of brexu-cel infusion and were not censored for hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) or maintenance. All living patients were censored at the time of last follow-up prior to data lock, which occurred on June 30, 2023.
Results: Among 152 infused, 83 (54.6%) had pre-CAR InO therapy (InO-exposed), with a median of 3 administered doses (range: 1-22). Within the InO-exposed cohort, 23 (28%) pts received InO as a CAR T-cell bridging therapy (ie, between apheresis and lymphodepletion) with or without pre-apheresis and 60 (72%) pts received InO only during pre-apheresis. Baseline characteristics for InO exposed and InO-naïve pts are shown in Table 1. InO-exposed pts had higher median prior lines of therapies (4 vs. 3; p= 0.05), more frequently had active disease (≥5% marrow blasts) at the time of apheresis (67% vs. 44%, p= 0.02), and had lower incidence of Ph+ disease (19% vs. 45%, p=0.003), compared to InO-naïve pts, respectively.
The incidences of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (85% vs. 85%, p= 0.26) and ICANS (58% vs. 57%, p= 0.36) post infusion were similar, and post-infusion death in remission occurred in 17% and 12% among InO-exposed and InO-naïve pts, respectively. Morphological complete remission (CR) and MRD- rates following brexu-cel infusion were 89% and 77% for InO-exposed pts, and 92% and 70% for InO-naive pts, respectively. Post CAR therapy, more InO-naïve pts underwent consolidation/maintenance therapy (transplant, chemotherapy, or TKIs) compared to InO-exposed pts (41% vs. 19%, p= 0.004).
The median follow-up after brexu-cel was 8.4 (range) months. Median OS (not reached (NR) vs. 12 months; p= 0.033) and median PFS (NR vs. 7 months; p= 0.029) were superior in InO-naïve pts compared to InO-exposed pts, respectively. However, after adjusting for pre-apheresis disease burden and post-CAR maintenance therapy, there were no longer significant differences in OS (HR= 1.25;95%CI: 0.62-2.53; p= 0.53) or PFS (HR= 1.24;95%CI:0.71-2.16, p=0.45) based on pre-CAR InO exposure. When InO-exposed pts were stratified based on prior InO-response (CR vs. no response), InO-responsive pts had superior estimated 12-month OS (64%) and PFS (38%) relative to InO-refractory pts (OS: 33%; PFS: 34%), but inferior to InO-naïve pts (OS: 75%; PFS 56%), with p-values of 0.0001 and 0.021 for OS and PFS, respectively (Figure 1). The timing of pre-CAR InO therapy did not impact brexu-cel survival outcomes, with comparable estimated 12-month OS (43% vs. 58%, p= 0.35) and PFS (46% vs. 38%, p= 0.57) for InO-exposed pts during bridging therapy and patients who received InO as a therapy prior to apheresis.
Conclusion: After adjusting for pre-CAR disease burden and post-CAR consolidation/maintenance, we found that prior InO exposure does not significantly associate with PFS or OS following brexu-cel. However, relative to InO-responsive patients, patients who were InO-refractory appear to have worse post-CAR survival outcomes. Finally, timing of InO administration (ie as a prior line of therapy or as CAR bridging) did not influence outcomes brexu-cel outcomes.