| Literature DB >> 34113569 |
Ying Zhang1,2,3, Jiaqi Li1,2,3, Xiaoyan Lou4, Xiaochen Chen1,2,3, Zhou Yu4, Liqing Kang4, Jia Chen1,2,3, Jin Zhou1,2,3, Xiangping Zong1,2,3, Zhen Yang1,2,3, Minghao Li5, Nan Xu5, Sixun Jia1,2,3, Hongzhi Geng1,2,3, Guanghua Chen1,2,3, Haiping Dai1,2,3, Xiaowen Tang1,2,3, Lei Yu4,5, Depei Wu1,2,3, Caixia Li1,2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of T cells expressing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR T) engineered to target CD19 constitutes breakthrough treatment for relapsed or refractory B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R B-NHL). Despite improved outcomes, high relapse rate remains a challenge to overcome. Here, we report the clinical results and the pharmacokinetics of bispecific CD19/22 CAR T in patients with R/R B-NHL.Entities:
Keywords: B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma; CD19/22; bispecific chimeric antigen receptor; cellular kinetics; relapsed or refractory
Year: 2021 PMID: 34113569 PMCID: PMC8185372 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.664421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Patient Demographic and Baseline Disease Characteristics.
| Characteristics | No. of Patients, % (32) |
|---|---|
| Age (years), no. (%) | |
| <60 | 24 (75.0) |
| ≥60 | 8 (25.0) |
| Sex, no. (%) | |
| Male | 19 (59.4) |
| Female | 13 (40.6) |
| ECOG perform status score, no. (%) | |
| 0–1 | 28 (87.5) |
| 2 | 4 (12.5) |
| Disease stage at study entry | |
| III | 9 (28.1) |
| IV | 23 (71.9) |
| Disease type | |
| DLBCL | 27 (84.4) |
| TFL | 2 (6.3) |
| PMBL | 1 (3.0) |
| HGBL | 2 (6.3) |
| Extranodal organ involvement, no. (%) | |
| Yes | 23 (71.9) |
| No | 9 (28.1) |
| LDH higher than ULN | 15 (46.9) |
| IPI risk group | |
| Low (0 or 1 factor) | 6 (18.7) |
| Low/intermediate (2 factors) | 7 (21.9) |
| Intermediate/high (3 factors) | 15 (46.9) |
| High (4 or 5 factors) | 4 (12.5) |
| No. of previous lines of antineoplastic therapy, no. (%) | |
| <3 | 19 (59.4) |
| ≥3 | 13 (40.6) |
| History of primary refractory | 5 (15.6) |
| Relapsed after HSCT | 4 (12.5) |
| Tumor burden | |
| SPD ≥100 cm2 | 5 (15.6) |
| SPD <100 cm2 | 27 (84.4) |
| Bulky/non-bulky disease | |
| Lesion diameter ≥10 cm | 8 (25.0) |
| Lesion diameter <10 cm | 24 (75.0) |
ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; DLBCL, diffuse large B cell; TFL, transformed follicular lymphoma; PMBL, primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma; HGBL, high grade B-cell lymphoma; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; ULN, upper limit of normal; IPI, International Prognostic Index; HSCT, Hematopoietic stem cell transplant; SPD, sum of the product of greatest diameter.
Figure 1Clinical outcomes of treatment with bispecific CD19/22 CAR T cells. Survival using the Kaplan–Meier method among patients treated with bispecific CD19/22 CAR T cells. (A, B) The best overall response rate was 79.3%, and 34.5% of patients achieved a complete response (CR). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.8 months; (C) PFS rates were 51.4% at 6 months and 40.0% at 12 months. (D) The median overall survival was not reached, with overall survival rates were 69.1% at 6 months and 63.3% at 12 months. (C, D) Patients who achieved CR after the CAR T cells infusion experienced prolonged survival compared with those without CR, with the estimated PFS and OS rate at 12 months were 66.7% and 100%, respectively.
Adverse among All 32 Treated Patients.
| Adverse events | Any | Grade 1 | Grade 2 | Grade 3 | Grade 4 | Grade 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any | 30 (93.8) | 0 | 1 (3.1) | 7 (21.9) | 21 (65.6) | 1 (3.1) |
| CRS | 29 (90.6) | 14 (43.8) | 6 (18.7) | 5 (15.6) | 3 (9.4) | 1 (3.1) |
| ICANS | 5 (15.6) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 4 (12.5) | 0 | 0 |
| Haematological toxicity | ||||||
| Neutropenia | 26 (81.3) | 0 | 0 | 4 (12.5) | 22 (68.8) | 0 |
| Thrombocytopenia | 26 (81.3) | 1 (3.1) | 8 (25.0) | 8 (25.0) | 9 (28.1) | 0 |
| Anaemia | 30 (93.8) | 2 (6.3) | 10 (31.3) | 14 (43.8) | 4 (12.5) | 0 |
| General disorders and administration site conditions | ||||||
| Pyrexia | 29 (90.6) | 10 (31.3) | 14 (43.8) | 4 (12.5) | 1 (3.1) | 0 |
| Fatigue | 14 (43.8) | 10 (31.3) | 4 (12.5) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Chills | 13 (40.6) | 11 (34.4) | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Skin rash | 2 (6.3) | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pain | 2 (6.3) | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Laboratory tests | ||||||
| ALT increased | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 |
| AST increased | 3 (9.4) | 0 | 2 (6.3) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 |
| T-BIL increased | 3 (9.4) | 2 (6.3) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Creatinine increased | 7 (21.9) | 2 (6.3) | 2 (6.3) | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) |
| APTT prolonged | 12 (33.3) | 6 (18.7) | 4 (12.5) | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 0 |
| Disorders of the Cardiac, respiratory system, renal system, and Gastrointestinal system | ||||||
| Hypotension | 13 (40.6) | 4 (12.5) | 1 (3.1) | 7 (21.9) | 1 (3.1) | 0 |
| Hypoxia | 7 (21.9) | 3 (9.4) | 0) | 4 (12.5) | 0 | 0 |
| Heart failure | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (6.3) | 0 |
| Dyspnoea | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 |
| Acute kidney injury | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) |
| Nausea | 7 (21.9) | 3 (9.4) | 4 (12.5) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vomiting | 8 (25.0) | 5 (15.6) | 3 (9.4) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Abdominal distention | 4 (12.5) | 2 (6.3) | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 |
| Diarrhoea | 4 (12.5) | 4 (12.5) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Infections | ||||||
| Lung infection | 5 (15.6) | 0 | 0 | 5 (15.6) | 0 | 0 |
| Septicaemia | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 0 | 2(6.3) | 0 | 0 |
| Neurologic events | ||||||
| Delirium | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 |
| Epilepsy | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 |
| Somnolence | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 1 (3.1) | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 |
| Cognitive disturbance | 3 (9.4) | 0 | 1 (3.1) | 2 (6.3) | 0 | 0 |
| Speech disorder | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 1 (3.1) | 0 | 0 | |
Severity of adverse events was graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0. Cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events were graded according to the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (ASBMT) consensus. Regarding the grade 5 events, one patient died from acute kidney injury related to CAR T therapy. CRS, cytokine release syndrome; ICANS, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; T-BIL, total bilirubin; APTT, activated partial thromboplastin time.
Summary of cellular kinetic parameters stratified by response.
| Parameters | CR/PR | PD/SD/Unknown | All Patients | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 23 | N = 9 | N = 32 | ||
| AUC0–28d (copies/μg*days) | ||||
| N | 23 | 6 | 29 | |
| Geometric mean | 1,635,220.0 | 564,240.7 | 1,212,189.4 | |
| CV% | 110.3 | 158.4 | 124.8 | |
| Fold difference (responders vs non-responders) | 289% | |||
| AUC0–84 d (copies/μg*days) | ||||
| N | 18 | 4 | 22 | |
| Geometric mean | 1,971,703.9 | 752,917.4 | 1,655,101.1 | |
| CV% | 113.8 | 61.9 | 122.6 | |
| Fold difference (responders vs non-responders) | 262% | |||
| Cmax (copies/μg) | ||||
| N | 23 | 9 | 32 | |
| Geometric mean | 331,312.1 | 197,118.8 | 286,294.4 | |
| CV% | 107.1 | 272.8 | 346.8 | |
| Fold difference (responders vs non-responders) | 168% | |||
| Tmax (days) | ||||
| n | 23 | 9 | 32 | |
| Median | 12 | 12 | 12 | |
| Min, max | 2, 25 | 1, 28 | 1, 28 | |
| Tlast (days) | ||||
| n | 23 | 9 | 32 | |
| Median | 133 | 22 | 92.5 | |
| Min, max | 15, 763 | 13, 174 | 13, 763 | |
CR, complete response; PR, partial response; PD, progressive disease; SD, stable disease; AUC, area under the curve; CV, coefficient of variation; Cmax, maximal expansion of transgenic T cell levels in peripheral blood after the infusion; Tmax, time to maximal expansion; Tlast, T cells are present in peripheral blood.
Figure 2Relationship between the number of prior treatment lines and cellular kinetics. (A) Patients who had received three or more lines of prior treatment had a lower Cmax (P = 0.006). (B) Patients who had received three or more lines of prior treatment had a lower AUC0–28 d (P = 0.002). (C) Patients who had received three or more lines of prior treatment had a lower AUC0–84 d (P = 0.003). (D) Patients who had received three or more lines of prior treatment had a lower Tmax (P = 0.006). (E) No difference was observed in Tlast among patients with different numbers of lines of prior treatment (P = 0.212).
Figure 3Relationship between cellular kinetics and response. Relationship between Cmax (A) and AUC0–28 d (B). DOR in patients with a response (C). Patients with an ongoing response at the last follow-up day had higher Cmax (A) and AUC0–28 d values (B). Patients with a higher-than-median Cmax had a potentially longer DOR than those with lower-than-median Cmax, but the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.463) (C).
Figure 4Relationship between cellular kinetics and AEs. Relationships between Cmax and CRS (A), AUC0–28 d and CRS (B), Cmax and ICANS (C), Tmax and CRS (D) and Tmax and ICANS (E). (A, B) Patients with sCRS exhibited higher CD19/22 CAR T Cmax and AUC0–28 d values than those with grade 0–2 CRS, but these differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.229 and P = 0.102, respectively). (C) Patients with sICANS exhibited a higher Cmax than those with low/no ICANS, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.188). (D, E) Neither CRS nor ICANS was correlated with Tmax (P = 0.570 and P = 0.711, respectively).
Figure 5Relationship between the dose and cellular kinetics. Relationships between the infusion dose and Cmax (A) and AUC0–28 d (B). The dose-exposure analysis showed a flat relationship between the dose and cellular kinetic parameters, with r2 = 0.004 for Cmax (A) and r2 = 0.002 for AUC0–28 d (B).
Figure 6Relationships between the tumour burden and cellular kinetics, CRS, ICANS and efficacy. The baseline tumor burden did not affect Cmax (A) and AUC 0–28 d (B). A higher tumor burden was observed in patients with grade ≥3 CRS (C) and ICANS (D), while no apparent correlation was identified between the tumor burden and response (E).