Search

Background Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy leads to high overall response rates of ∼80% even in heavily pre-treated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), though relapse-free survival drops to ∼40% within the first 12 months. There are early data suggesting that inhibiting the programmed cell death protein 1: programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-1: PD-L1) checkpoint axis may decrease T cell exhaustion and improve CAR T-cell function. However, there is limited data regarding the toxicity of sequencing these two modalities. This case series of three patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL treated sequentially with CAR T and checkpoint inhibitor explores the immune-related adverse events (irAEs) with this approach. Case Presentation Case 1 is a 47-year-old male with refractory T-cell/Histiocyte-Rich Large B-Cell Lymphoma who was treated initially with pembrolizumab followed by CAR T-cell therapy and developed autoimmune thyroiditis. Case 2 is a 67-year-old male with refractory DLBCL who was treated with CAR T and subsequently pembrolizumab and developed pneumonitis and respiratory failure. Case 3 is a 22-year-old female with primary refractory mediastinal DLBCL who was treated with pembrolizumab following CAR T therapy and subsequently developed a T-cell mediated autoimmune skin reaction. Conclusions T cell exhaustion has been suspected to contribute to poor persistence of CAR T-cells and clinical relapse, which may be overcome by checkpoint inhibition. While the synergy between CAR T-cell therapy and checkpoint inhibition is promising, the interaction may also lead to off-target irAEs. Prospective trials exploring the safety and efficacy of this combination in relapsed/refractory DLBCL are under way.

Chimeric antigen receptor modified T Cell therapy (CAR-T) is a rapidly developing treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell lymphoma (NHL) or multiple myeloma (MM). Although veno...

Introduction: Chimeric antigen receptor modified T Cell (CAR-T) therapy is a rapidly developing treatment for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) or multiple myeloma (MM). Although this population is at high risk for thrombosis, there are few data about rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and arterial thromboembolism (ATE) with CAR-T. Additionally, treatment with anticoagulation is complicated because of the prevalence of thrombocytopenia following CAR-T. Our goal was to determine the incidence, associated risk factors, management and outcomes of VTE and ATE in the 60 days following CAR-T therapy. Methods: We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of all patients who received inpatient CAR-T cells at UCSF Medical Center between January 2018 and May 2020 for R/R NHL or MM as standard-of-care or on a clinical trial. The outcomes of incident VTE and ATE were identified by ICD-10 codes and medical record review. Patient characteristics, pre-existing thrombosis risk factors, laboratory results, medications, and major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding or recurrent thrombotic complications were obtained through chart review. We used descriptive statistics to delineate risk factors, incidence, management and outcomes of thrombotic events. Results: Ninety-one patients who underwent CAR-T therapy were included in the analysis, 37 with NHL and 54 with MM. For NHL, mean age was 63 (range 38-82), and 41% were women. For MM, mean age was 62 (range 33-77), and 50% were women. Patients with NHL were treated with either investigational or Federal Drug Administration-approved CD19-directed therapies, and patients with MM were treated with a variety of investigational B-cell maturation antigen-directed (BCMA) therapies. For thrombotic risk factors, 13% of patients with NHL had a history of VTE, 3% had a history of ATE, 27% had a BMI ≥30, 59% had a recent procedure including central venous catheter (CVC) placement, 14% had an intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and 22% had an infectious complication in the 30 days pre- or post-CAR-T. Forty-one percent of patients with NHL had neurotoxicity of any grade, and 59% had CRS of any grade. At 30 days, 57% had a complete response, 41% had a partial response, 3% had stable disease. For MM, 6% of patients had a pre-existing history of VTE, 2% had a history of ATE, 19% had a BMI ≥30, 96% had a recent procedure, 11% had an ICU stay and 19% had an infection. Seventeen percent had neurotoxicity, and 85% had CRS. Thirty-two percent of patients with NHL and 48% with MM received pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis while undergoing CAR-T. For those who did not receive VTE prophylaxis, thrombocytopenia was the reason for holding prophylaxis, which occurred in 51% and 50% of NHL and MM patients, respectively. In the 60 days post-CAR-T, 4 (11%) patients with NHL were diagnosed with VTE-3 pulmonary embolism (PE) and 1 lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) associated with a previously placed inferior vena cava filter. Four (7%) patients with MM were diagnosed with VTE-1 PE and 3 upper extremity DVTs associated with CVCs. Five out of these 8 (63%) patients had symptomatic VTE, while the remainder were incidental on PETCT. Mean time from CAR-T infusion to VTE diagnosis was 20 days (range 6-39 days). There were no documented ATEs. Six out of 8 (75%) were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation. Of those who were anticoagulated, 4 patients received direct oral anticoagulants and 2 received low-molecular-weight-heparin. Duration was 3 months in 3 patients, 11 days in 1, 150 days in 1, and indefinitely in 1 with atrial fibrillation. Among all 8 patients with VTE, there were no bleeding events or recurrent thromboses regardless of whether or not they received anticoagulation. Discussion: In this cohort of patients with R/R NHL or MM who received either CD19- or BCMA-directed therapies, almost 1 in 10 developed VTE in the 60 days post-CAR-T. This occurred in the context of a high prevalence of risk factors for thrombosis and low rates of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Among those who developed VTE, the majority were treated with therapeutic anticoagulation for at least 3 months, without documented bleeding or recurrent VTE. Our findings provide crucial information on a common complication that can inform patients, clinicians and researchers and should be expanded upon in larger, prospective studies to identify optimal preventive and therapeutic strategies. Disclosures Fakhri: University of California San Francisco: Current Employment. Andreadis:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene/Juno: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wong:Janssen: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Fortis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Shah:BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding; GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy.

Outcomes in multiple myeloma (MM) have improved dramatically in the last two decades with the advent of novel therapies including immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. In recent years, immunotherapy for the treatment of MM has advanced rapidly, with the approval of new targeted agents and monoclonal antibodies directed against myeloma cell-surface antigens, as well as maturing data from late stage trials of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. Therapies that engage the immune system to treat myeloma offer significant clinical benefits with durable responses and manageable toxicity profiles, however, the appropriate use of these immunotherapy agents can present unique challenges for practicing physicians. Therefore, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer convened an expert panel, which met to consider the current role of approved and emerging immunotherapy agents in MM and provide guidance to the oncology community by developing consensus recommendations. As immunotherapy evolves as a therapeutic option for the treatment of MM, these guidelines will be updated.