Search

PURPOSE Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) is an autologous B-cell maturation antigen–directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy approved for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) on the basis of the phase II pivotal KarMMa trial, which demonstrated best overall and ≥ complete response rates of 73% and 33%, respectively. We report clinical outcomes with standard-of-care (SOC) ide-cel under the commercial Food and Drug Administration label. METHODS Data were retrospectively collected from patients with RRMM who underwent leukapheresis as of February 28, 2022, at 11 US institutions with intent to receive SOC ide-cel. Toxicities were graded per American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy guidelines and managed according to each institution's policies. Responses were graded on the basis of the International Myeloma Working Group response criteria. RESULTS One hundred fifty-nine of 196 leukapheresed patients received ide-cel by data cutoff. One hundred twenty (75%) infused patients would have been ineligible for participation in the KarMMa clinical trial because of comorbidities at the time of leukapheresis. Any grade and grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity occurred in 82/3% and 18/6%, respectively. Best overall and ≥ complete response rates were 84% and 42%, respectively. At a median follow-up of 6.1 months from chimeric antigen receptor T infusion, the median progression-free survival was 8.5 months (95% CI, 6.5 to not reached) and the median overall survival was 12.5 months (95% CI, 11.3 to not reached). Patients with previous exposure to B-cell maturation antigen–targeted therapy, high-risk cytogenetics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2 at lymphodepletion, and younger age had inferior progression-free survival on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION The safety and efficacy of ide-cel in patients with RRMM in the SOC setting were comparable with those in the phase II pivotal KarMMa trial despite most patients (75%) not meeting trial eligibility criteria.

Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) is being increasingly used for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) across various donor types. However, immune reconstitution and infection incidence after PTCy-based versus conventional GVHD prophylaxis has not been well studied. We evaluated the infection density and immune reconstitution (ie, absolute CD4+ T cell, CD8+ T cell, natural killer cell, and B cell counts) at 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year post-HCT in 583 consecutive adult patients undergoing allo-HCT with myeloablative (n = 223) or reduced-intensity (n = 360) conditioning between 2012 and 2018. Haploidentical (haplo; n = 75) and 8/8 HLA-matched unrelated (MUD; n = 08) donor types were included. GVHD prophylaxis was PTCy-based in all haplo (n = 75) and in 38 MUD allo-HCT recipients, whereas tacrolimus/methotrexate (Tac/MTX) was used in 89 and Tac/Sirolimus (Tac/Sir) was used in 381 MUD allo-HCT recipients. Clinical outcomes, including infections, nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and overall survival (OS), were compared across the 4 treatment groups. The recovery of absolute total CD4+ T-cell count was significantly lower in the haplo-PTCy and MUD-PTCy groups compared with the Tac/MTX and Tac/Sir groups throughout 1 year post-allo-HCT (P = .025). In contrast, CD19+ B-cell counts at 6 months and thereafter were higher in the haplo-PTCy and MUD-PTCy groups compared with the Tac/MTX and Tac/Sir groups (P

Background: Clinicians must closely monitor patients for toxicities after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (e.g., toxicities, quality of life) and activity data (e.g., steps, sleep) may complement clinicians’ observations. This study tested the feasibility and acceptability of collecting PROs and activity data from patients with hematologic malignancies during CAR-T and explored preliminary data patterns. Methods: Participants wore a Fitbit tracker and completed PROs at several timepoints through 90-days post-infusion. Feasibility was assessed with a priori benchmarks for recruitment (≥50%), retention (≥70%), PRO completion (≥70%), and days wearing the Fitbit (≥50%). Acceptability was assessed with participant satisfaction (a priori benchmark > 2 on a 0–4 scale). Results: Participants (N = 12) were M = 66 years old (SD = 7). Rates of recruitment (68%), retention (83%), PRO completion (85%), and days wearing the Fitbit (85%) indicated feasibility. Satisfaction with completing the PROs (M = 3.2, SD = 0.5) and wearing the Fitbit (M = 2.9, SD = 0.5) indicated acceptability. Preliminary data patterns suggested that participants with better treatment response (vs. progressive disease) had a higher toxicity burden. Conclusions: Longitudinal PRO and activity data collection was feasible and acceptable. Data collected on a larger scale may be used to specify risk prediction models to identify predictors of severe CAR-T-related toxicities and inform early interventions.

With the incorporation of novel agents in earlier lines of therapy, an increasing number of multiple myeloma patients are refractory to traditional classes of drugs. Selinexor in combination with dexamethasone has emerged as a viable option for heavily pretreated triple-class relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In this systematic review, we analyzed available literature on the role of selinexor in RRMM. The Boston trial demonstrated that selinexor when combined with dexamethasone and bortezomib is associated with a better depth and duration of response without excessive toxicity, compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. Similarly, selinexor in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone was found to have a durable response and tolerable safety profile in both carfilzomib-naive and carfilzomib refractory RRMM patients. Selinexor in combination with IMiDs (lenalidomide and pomalidomide) as well as CD38 monoclonal antibodies (daratumumab) also have promising results. Selinexor combination therapy is both safe and effective for patients with pretreated RRMM.

8042 Background: Ide-cel, a BCMA directed CAR T-cell therapy, was FDA approved 3/26/2021 for the treatment of RRMM after 4 prior lines of therapy. We evaluated the real-world outcomes of patients treated with standard of care ide-cel under the commercial FDA label. Methods: Ten US academic centers contributed data to this effort independent of the manufacturer. As of 1/10/2022, 138 patients were leukapheresed with overall manufacturing failure in 6 (4%). 108 patients were infused ≥ 30 days prior to data-cut off and constitute the study population for this retrospective analysis. Results: Table describes the study population compared to the pivotal KarMMa-1 trial (Munshi et al, NEJM 2021). Patients in our study were less likely to have ECOG PS of 0/1 (77%) and more likely to be penta-refractory (41%). 67% of patients would not have met eligibility criteria for KarMMa. Common reasons for ineligibility (> 1 reason in 22% patients) were co-morbidities (28%), cytopenias (22%), prior therapy with alloSCT/CAR-T/other BCMA therapy (19%), CNS myeloma/non-measurable disease/plasma cell leukemia (13%), and fitness (12%). 81% of patients received bridging therapy. Toxicity was comparable to that seen in KarMMa-1. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was seen in 82% (> grade 3: 4%) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) in 15% (> grade 3: 5%) of patients, respectively. Tocilizumab and steroids were used in 72% and 25% of patients, respectively. Infections were seen in 34% of patients. Day 30 response was evaluable in 104 patients. Response rates were: ≥ partial response, 83%; ≥ very good partial response, 64%; and ≥ complete response (CR), 34%. 11% of patients have died by data cut-off, 7 due to disease progression and 5 due to other causes (1 grade 5 CRS, 1 hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, 1 progressive neurological weakness, 2 COVID-19). Conclusions: This multicenter retrospective study delineates the real-world outcomes of ide-cel CAR T-cell therapy for RRMM. Despite more patients being penta-refractory and less fit compared to the pivotal KarMMa trial, safety and 30-day responses in the real-world setting (overall response rate: 83%, CR: 34%) are comparable to the clinical trial population. Follow-up is ongoing and updated data will be presented. [Table: see text]

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is a curative treatment option for patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Both total body irradiation (TBI)-based and chemotherapy only-based myeloablative transplantation conditioning regimens have been applied, but the optimal regimen remains unclear. We performed a systematic review to assess the efficacy of TBI-based versus chemotherapy only-based myeloablative conditioning regimens. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases and meeting abstracts for all studies comparing TBI-based and chemotherapy only-based conditioning regimens in patients who underwent allo-HCT for ALL. Two authors independently reviewed all studies for inclusion and extracted data related to overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Eight studies were included in the final analysis. The overall methodological quality of the included studies was optimal. TBI-based regimens showed evidence of benefit compared with chemotherapy only-based conditioning regimens in terms of relapse (relative risk [RR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.94; 6 studies, 5091 patients), OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.89; 7 studies, 4727 patients), and PFS (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.85; 7 studies, 4727 patients). The TBI-based regimen did not increase the likelihood of grade II-IV acute GVHD (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.36; 5 studies, 4996 patients) or chronic GVHD (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.21; 5 studies, 4490 patients), or NRM (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.28; 6 studies, 4522 patients). However, TBI-based regimens were associated with an increased risk of grade III-IV acute GVHD (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 3675 patients). A subgroup comparison of patients age ≥16 years showed similar results. This systematic review represents evidence supporting the use of TBI-based conditioning regimen in patients undergoing allo-HCT for ALL who are candidates for myeloablative conditioning, as it offers better OS, PFS, and less relapse with acceptable NRM.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is an effective strategy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies leading to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of five CAR T cell products. Despite encouraging efficacy, the widespread utilization of CAR T cell therapy is limited by unique immune mediated toxicities, primarily cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic toxicity. Data regarding late effects and long-term toxicities of CAR T cell therapy is evolving and includes prolonged cytopenias, hypogammaglobulinemia, infections and secondary malignancies. In this review, we will describe the clinical presentation, diagnosis, mechanisms and management of short- and long-term toxicities of CAR T cell therapy.

e20043 Background: The diagnosis and upfront management of immunoglobulin light chain (AL) amyloidosis have greatly improved in recent years. However, little is known about the presentation, treatment, and outcome of these patients at first relapse/progression (R/P). Methods: All patients with AL amyloidosis who received salvage therapy for first R/P disease at Moffitt Cancer Center between 2008 and 2020 were included in this retrospective review. Definitions of hematologic and organ R/P were based on 2012 consensus. Overall survival was measured from the time of salvage to last follow up/death. Survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier with log-rank comparison. Results: Sixty-nine patients were included. The median age at diagnosis was 62 years and 61% were male. Upfront therapy included high dose melphalan with autologous transplant in 36% and bortezomib in 52%. At salvage, 19% had disease refractory to upfront therapy and 40% had not achieved an organ response. The median time from upfront to salvage therapy was 22 months. Salvage regimens included proteasome inhibitors, daratumumab and immunomodulatory drugs in 55%, 13% and 22%, respectively. At least a very good partial response and organ response were achieved in 35% (22/62) and 39% (21/54) with measurable disease. The median overall survival was 60 months. Based on salvage indication, patients were classified into hematologic (n = 29) and organ R/P (n = 40), and the latter showed more frequent lambda-light chain disease (59% vs. 83%, p = 0.028) and low difference of involved-uninvolved free light chain at diagnosis (< 50 mg/L, 8% vs. 44%, p = 0.002). Negative prognostic markers for survival included bone marrow plasma cells ≥20% at diagnosis (median 17 months vs. not reached; p < 0.001) and organ, particularly cardiac R/P (median, 31 months vs. not reached; p = 0.003). Salvage ( p = 0.48) or prior regimens ( p = 0.11) did not impact post-salvage survival. Conclusions: Our study highlights the unmet need of salvage in R/P AL amyloidosis in a real-world setting, given the low rate of deep responses regardless of current salvage options. Patients with bone marrow plasma cells ≥20% at diagnosis and organ R/P at salvage had inferior survival, supporting use of intensive upfront regimens for the former and adjustment of therapy if deep response is not achieved.[Table: see text]

BACKGROUND: European LeukemiaNet (ELN) 2017 risk stratification by genetics is prognostic of outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, the prognostic impact of the 2017 ELN genetic risk stratification after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) is not well established. OBJECTIVE: We examined the effect of 2017 ELN genetic risk stratification on alloHCT outcomes of AML. METHODS: We included 500 adult (≥18 years) AML patients in first (n=370) or second (n=130) complete remission receiving alloHCT from 2005 to 2016. Patients were classified into favorable (12%), intermediate (57%), and adverse (32%) 2017 ELN risk groups. The Cox proportional hazard model was used to conduct the multivariable analyses of leukemia-free survival (LFS) and overall survival (OS). Relapse and non-relapse mortality were analyzed by the Fine-Gray regression model. RESULTS: OS at 2 years was 72% in the favorable vs. 60% in the intermediate vs. 45% in the adverse risk groups (p

8517 Background: The combination of bortezomib (Bort) and alkylating agent (AA) is a frequently used first-line therapy for AL amyloidosis. Kastritis et al. compared melphalan and dexamethasone with or without bortezomib as primary therapy and demonstrated increased hematologic response rate with the bortezomib and melphalan combination. However, the role of AA is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate if adding AA to Bort improved patient outcomes in AL amyloidosis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed clinical data on 209 patients with systemic AL Amyloidosis at Moffitt Cancer Center between 2008 and 2020. We excluded patients with localized amyloidosis or amyloid other than AL. Patients were divided into two groups based on upfront therapy: A) Bort and B) Bort + AA. All patients also received dexamethasone. The staging was per Mayo 2012. Organ involvement, response, and progression were defined based on the 2005 criteria. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from initial diagnosis until death or last contact. Time to next therapy (TTNT) was calculated in patients with the documented hematologic response from the time of initiation of therapy to time of the next therapy/last follow up/death. Results: Of 209 patients, 36% (n=76) received Bort+AA; 30% (n=62) received Bort. No significant difference in clinical characteristics was seen in both groups except for age (which was higher for arm A: median 65 and 62 years, respectively, p=0.043) (table). In addition, Bort+AA became more commonly used as a frontline therapy after 1/1/2014 (p=0.001). Group A and B had similar median OS (69.9 months [95% CI. 44.7-95.2] and 64.4 mo [95% CI 40.5-88.3] respectively, p=0.60). 86% of patients in group B achieved a hematologic response as compared to 74% of patients in group A (p=0.15). Similarly, 47% of patients in group B achieved an organ response as compared to 34% of patients in group A (p=0.22). TTNT was higher in group A than group B (16.9 mo [95% CI, 0-41.5] and 7.8 mo [95% CI, 3.5-12.0], respectively, p=0.08). Conclusions: While Bort+AA is a commonly used regimen for amyloidosis, the addition of AA to Bort did not result in superior OS, TTNT compared to Bort alone in this retrospective study. This finding should be confirmed in prospective studies. Baseline Characteristics. [Table: see text]

e20568 Background: It has been shown in mouse models doxycycline(Doxy) interferes with amyloid fibril formation. Retrospective data suggests the addition of Doxy to standard chemotherapy(chemo) reduces mortality in cardiac amyloidosis. We examined the relationship between Doxy use, treatment, and OS in a cohort of AL Amyloidosis(AL) within an academic center. Methods: AL pts between 2008 and 2020 at Moffitt Cancer Center. For this study we included patients with AL, with all types of organ involvement. We excluded pts with non-AL Amyloidosis and pts with localized amyloidosis were excluded. Data on organ involved, organ response, date of death, treatment were obtained for each pt. OS was defined as time from AL diagnosis to date of death. Univariate comparisons were performed to identify differences in treatment and other prognostic variables between Doxy groups, where appropriate (Table). Results: 209 pts that met inclusion criteria, 13 pts(6%) had cardiac involvement with AL. Of those 13 pts, only 3 pts(23%) received Doxy in addition to standard of care chemo. For this study, we included all types of AL for total 209 pts. Of the 209 pts, 9.5% received Doxy in addition to standard of care chemo and 90.5% pts did not receive Doxy and had chemo alone. Pts who received Doxy had more proteinuria (suggesting more significant renal involvement) but other characteristics were not statistically different including cardiac biomarkers (table). A numerically higher rate of organ response (67% versus 43%) was noted in patients who received Doxy but this didn’t reach statistical significance. Further the OS was numerically higher for Doxy treated pts however again this didn’t meet statistical significance. Conclusions: We noted higher organ responses and overall survival in Doxy treated pts, we could not identify statistical differences in outcomes possibly because of the sample size. Nevertheless, further follow up is warranted and Doxy may be associated with improved outcomes in AL. [Table: see text]