| Literature DB >> 33002134 |
David Sermer1, Connie Batlevi1,2, M Lia Palomba1,2, Gunjan Shah2,3, Richard J Lin2,3, Miguel-Angel Perales2,3, Michael Scordo2,3, Parastoo Dahi2,3, Martina Pennisi3, Aishat Afuye3, Mari Lynne Silverberg3, Caleb Ho4, Jessica Flynn5, Sean Devlin5, Philip Caron1,2, Audrey Hamilton1,2, Paul Hamlin1,2, Steven Horwitz1,2, Erel Joffe1,2, Anita Kumar1,2, Matthew Matasar1,2, Ariela Noy1,2, Colette Owens1,2, Alison Moskowitz1,2, David Straus1,2, Gottfried von Keudell1,2, Ildefonso Rodriguez-Rivera1,2, Lorenzo Falchi1,2, Andrew Zelenetz1,2, Joachim Yahalom6, Anas Younes1,2, Craig Sauter2,3.
Abstract
The prognosis of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is poor. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has been approved for R/R DLBCL after 2 prior lines of therapy based on data from single-arm phase 2 trials, with complete responses (CRs) in 40% to 60% of patients. However, a direct comparison with other treatments is not available and, moreover, its true efficacy in real-world patients is unknown. In this single center, retrospective, observational study of 215 patients, we compared outcomes in patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy (n = 69) with a historical population treated with alternate therapies (n = 146). Patients treated with CAR T cell vs alternate therapies demonstrated a CR rate of 52% vs 22% (P < .001), median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.2 vs 2.3 months (P = .01), and median overall survival (OS) of 19.3 vs 6.5 months (P = .006), and this advantage appeared to persist irrespective of the number of lines of prior therapy. After adjusting for unfavorable pretreatment disease characteristics, superior overall response rate in the CAR T cohort remained significant; however, differences in PFS and OS between cohorts did not. In addition, patients who responded to alternate therapies demonstrated prolonged remissions comparable to those who responded to CAR T therapy. We contend that in select clinical scenarios alternate therapies may be as efficacious as CAR T therapy; thus, additional study is warranted, ideally with randomized prospective trials.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33002134 PMCID: PMC7556134 DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Blood Adv ISSN: 2473-9529