ABSTRACT
Bridging therapy (BT) after leukapheresis is required in most relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells. Bendamustine-containing regimens are a potential BT option. We aimed to assess if this agent had a negative impact on CAR-T outcomes when it was administered as BT. We included R/R LBCL patients from six centers who received systemic BT after leukapheresis from February 2019 to September 2022; patients who only received steroids or had pre-apheresis bendamustine exposure were excluded. Patients were divided into two BT groups, with and without bendamustine. Separate safety and efficacy analyses were carried out for axi-cel and tisa-cel. Of 243 patients who received BT, bendamustine (benda) was included in 62 (26%). There was a higher rate of BT progressors in the non-benda group (62% vs. 45%, p = 0.02). Concerning CAR-T efficacy, complete responses were comparable for benda versus non-benda BT cohorts with axi-cel (70% vs. 53%, p = 0.12) and tisa-cel (44% vs. 36%, p = 0.70). Also, 12-month progression-free and overall survival were not significantly different between BT groups with axi-cel (56% vs. 43% and 71% vs. 63%) and tisa-cel (25% vs. 26% and 52% vs. 48%); there were no differences when BT response was considered. CAR T-cell expansion for each construct was similar between BT groups. Regarding safety, CRS G ≥3 (6% vs. 6%, p = 0.79), ICANS G ≥3 (15% vs. 17%, p = 0.68), severe infections, and neutropenia post-infusion were comparable among BT regimens. BT with bendamustine-containing regimens is safe for patients requiring disease control during CAR T-cell manufacturing.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: The efficacies of chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-Ts) and bispecific monoclonal antibodies (BiAbs) for triple-class refractory (TCR) myeloma have not previously been compared, and clinical data on how to rescue patients after relapse from these immunotherapies are limited. A retrospective study of 73 TCR patients included in trials was conducted: 36 received CAR-Ts and 37 received BiAbs. CAR-Ts produced a higher overall response rate (ORR) than BiAbs (97.1% vs 56.8%, P = .002). After a median of follow-up of 18.7 months, no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) was observed between the CAR-T and BiAbs groups (16.6 vs 10.8 months; P = .090), whereas overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the CAR-T than in the BiAbs group (49.2 vs 22.6 months; P = .021). BiAbs after CAR-Ts yielded a higher ORR and longer PFS2 than did nonredirecting T-cell therapies after CAR-Ts (ORR: 87.5% vs 50.0%; PFS2: 22.9 vs 12.4 months). By contrast, BiAbs after BiAbs resulted in an ORR of 33% and PFS2 of 8.4 months, which was similar to that produced by the nonredirecting T-cell therapies (ORR: 28.6%; PFS2: 8.1 months). Although this is a pooled analysis of different trials with different products and the patient profile is different for CAR-Ts and BiAbs, both were effective therapies for TCR myeloma. However, in our experience, although the PFS was similar with the 2 approaches, CAR-T therapy resulted in better OS, mainly because of the efficacy of BiAbs as rescue therapy. Our results highlight the importance of treatment sequence in real-word experience.