Literature DB >> 34700342

Early FDG-PET response predicts CAR-T failure in large B-cell lymphoma.

Andrea Kuhnl1, Claire Roddie2, Amy A Kirkwood3, Tobias Menne4, Maria Cuadrado1, Maria A V Marzolini2, Wendy Osborne4, Robin Sanderson1, Maeve O'Reilly2, William Townsend2, Reuben Benjamin1, Victoria Potter1, Piers E M Patten1,5, Deborah Yallop1, Stefan Voo6, George S Petrides7, Nicola Mulholland8, Irfan Kayani6.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34700342      PMCID: PMC8753214          DOI: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005807

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Blood Adv        ISSN: 2473-9529


× No keyword cloud information.
TO THE EDITOR: Despite high initial response rates, most patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) treated with CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR-T) will progress. Best overall response rates with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are 50% to 80%, only half of which are durable.[1-3] Pretreatment factors like lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) are associated with outcome after CAR-T[2,4,5] and inform upfront patient selection, but have no proven role in postinfusion risk-stratification. Prospective, early identification of patients who will experience transient vs durable CAR-T responses could in the future provide the rationale for targeted combination approaches to counteract CAR-T failure. Indeed, detection of CAR-T failure prior to frank relapse may improve patient outcomes. Currently, only half of patients with post–CAR-T progression receive further treatment, reflecting the rapid clinical deterioration in this population.[6] Furthermore, only 20% to 25% of patients achieve prolonged remission following post–CAR-T therapies. Potentially more patients could be salvaged if CAR-T failure was detected early. Fluorodeoxyglucose–positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging using the 5-point Deauville score (DS) is the gold-standard assessment for end-of-treatment response in LBCL.[7] Interim PET response provides prognostic information in R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxydaunorubicin doxorubicin, vincristine [oncovin], and prednisone)-treated patients,[8-10] and PET-driven treatment strategies are being investigated.[11-13] To date, this has not been evaluated in the context of CAR-T. In this multicenter retrospective analysis, we assessed early Deauville response after CAR-T in patients with LBCL as a potential tool to guide treatment decisions. We analyzed 171 consecutive patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL treated with licensed CAR-T across 3 UK centers (Freeman Hospital Newcastle, King’s College Hospital London, University College London Hospital) between February 2019 and December 2020 who were evaluable for response at 1 month and had at least 3 months’ follow-up. CAR-T eligibility was centrally reviewed by the National CAR-T Clinical Panel. CAR-T product choice was at the center’s discretion. Response was assessed locally according to the 5-point DS system.[7] We subclassified DS4 to account for postinflammatory changes after bridging radiotherapy (RT). Patients with DS4 uptake confined to the RT field were classified DS4RT. FDG-PET scans were performed at 1 month (median, 28 days; interquartile range [IQR], 27-29), 3 months (median, 91 days; IQR, 86-97), and 6 months (median, 181 days; IQR, 175-187) postinfusion. Data were collected retrospectively from hospital records. PET scans were analyzed using non-point spread function reconstructions. Transient response was defined as progressive disease (PD) by month 6 after complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) at the 1-month assessment. Ongoing responses at 6 months were classified as durable. Pretreatment factors were compared using Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney/Kruskal Wallis (continuous variables) or χ2/Fisher’s exact tests (discrete variables). Time to PD, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression. Time was measured from the 1-month scan until first event. Time to PD was analyzed using the method of Fine and Gray with nonrelapse mortality as competing event. One hundred seventy-one patients were included (130 axi-cel, 41 tisa-cel), with a median follow-up postinfusion of 14.5 months. The median time from approval to infusion was 57 days (IQR, 49-72). One hundred thirty of 171 (76%) patients responded to CAR-T at the 1-month assessment (Figure 1). Forty of 130 (31%) patients had DS1 to 2 response, 31 (24%) patients had DS3 response, 46 (35%) patients had DS4 response, and 13 (10%) patients had PR DS5 response. Forty-six of 129 (36%) responders showed PD at 6 months (transient responders). The study was conducted as a national service evaluation not requiring separate institutional approval. It was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Figure 1.

Outcome according to the 1-month DS. Dynamics of response (A), time to relapse (B), PFS (C), and OS (D). SD, stable disease. *6 months postinfusion.

Outcome according to the 1-month DS. Dynamics of response (A), time to relapse (B), PFS (C), and OS (D). SD, stable disease. *6 months postinfusion. Baseline characteristics are provided in Table 1. Patients with transient vs durable response had higher LDH and C-reactive protein (CRP) preinfusion. Other baseline characteristics (including CAR-T product) did not significantly differ between groups. Deauville categories were significantly associated with durability of response, with a 15% risk of early progression for DS1 to 2, 32% for DS3, 37% for DS4, and 100% for DS5 (Table 1; Figure 1).
Table 1.

Baseline and on-treatment characteristics of responding patients

CharacteristicsAll(N = 130)Transient response(N = 46)Durable response(N = 83) P
Age, y, median (range)59.0 (18-78)60.5 (18-78)57.0 (19-77).71
Sex, male, no. (%)80 (61.5)33 (71.7)46 (55.4).068
Stage, III/IV (vs I/II), no. (%)96 (73.8)33 (71.7)62 (74.7).71
ECOG PS preinfusion, no. (%) .72*
 2 vs 0 to 19 (6.9)4 (8.7)5 (6.0)
Extranodal involvement, no. (%) .99
 2 or more sites28 (21.5)10 (21.7)18 (21.7)
Bulk (≥7.5 cm)30 (23.1)14 (30.4)16 (19.3).15
COO, no. (%), n = 97 .19
 Non-GCB (vs GCB)40 (41.2)10 (31.3)29 (45.3)
Double/triple hit, no. (%), n = 108 .67
 Double/triple hit (vs none)13 (12.0)6 (15.8)7 (10.1)
 Double/triple expressor (vs none)16 (14.8)5 (13.2)11 (15.9)
Refractory to last treatment, no. (%)86 (66.2)32 (69.6)53 (63.9).51
Bridging therapy, no. (%) .83*
 Systemic67 (51.5)25 (54.3)42 (50.6)
 RT30 (23.1)9 (19.6)20 (24.1)
 Combined modality5 (3.8)1 (2.2)4 (4.8)
LDH preinfusion, no. (%), n = 104 .041†
 >ULN (vs normal)50 (48.1)20 (55.6)29 (43.3)
 >2 ULN (vs normal)12 (11.5)6 (16.7)6 (9.0)
CRP preinfusion, median (range), n = 10411.2 (0.5-235)22.5 (1-235)6.8 (0.5-160).003
CAR-T product, no. (%)
 Axi-cel107 (82.3)39 (84.8)67 (80.7).56
 Tisa-cel23 (17.7)7 (15.2)16 (19.3)
Grade ≥3 CAR-T toxicity, no. (%)
 CRS11 (8.5)6 (13.0)5 (6.0).20*
 ICANS22 (16.9)8 (17.4)13 (15.7).80
DS at 1 mo, no. (%)
 DS 1-240 (30.8)6 (13.0)34 (41.0)<.0001
 DS 331 (23.8)10 (21.7)21 (25.3)
 DS 446 (35.4)17 (37.0)28 (33.7)
 DS 513 (10.0)13 (28.3)0

Exclusion of n = 1 patient with nonrelapse death prior to 3-mo assessment (not evaluable for durability of response). P values are Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney (continuous) or χ2 (discrete, except *Fisher’s exact test and †χ2 for trend).

COO, cell of origin; CRS, cytokine release syndrome; GCB, germinal center B-cell; ICANS, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome; ULN, upper limit of normal.

Baseline and on-treatment characteristics of responding patients Exclusion of n = 1 patient with nonrelapse death prior to 3-mo assessment (not evaluable for durability of response). P values are Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney (continuous) or χ2 (discrete, except *Fisher’s exact test and †χ2 for trend). COO, cell of origin; CRS, cytokine release syndrome; GCB, germinal center B-cell; ICANS, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome; ULN, upper limit of normal. Of 46 patients with DS4 response, 15 had received RT bridging therapy within 6 to 8 weeks of the 1-month scan, at which time inflammatory post-RT changes are common. Patients with focal DS4 uptake in the RT field were classified as DS4RT. The DS4RT group behaved similarly to DS1/2 cases with risk of progression at 6 months of 10% vs 46% for the remaining DS4 cases (Table 1; Figure 1). The 1-month Deauville response was not associated with baseline characteristics apart from higher LDH (P = .024) and CRP preinfusion (P = .0018). *Rather than having 1 DS cutoff, we considered the predictive power of the 1-month score in 2 ways. Would we want to forgo further treatment in the low-risk group (low false discovery rate when predicting durable responses), and should the high-risk group be considered treatment failures (high specificity)? The DS1 to 2/DS4RT group showed an excellent false discovery rate (14.0%), and the DS5 group showed 100% specificity for predicting transient response (vs 22.5% and 66.3% for a complete response/PR cut point [DS1 to 3 vs 4 to 5]). DS3 and DS4 cases constitute an intermediate-risk group. Time to relapse across groups is shown in Figure 1, with hazard ratio of 3.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-6.6) for DS3 to 4 and 19.8 (95% CI, 7.8-49.7) for DS5 vs DS1 to 2/DS4RT. DS groups were the only significant factor for time to relapse in multivariable analysis. Long-term survival of responding patients significantly differed according to the 1-month DS (Figure 1). Twelve-month PFSs were 77.1% (DS1 to 2/DS4RT), 63.5% (DS3), 43.5% (DS4), and 0% (DS5), and 12-month OSs were 87.1%, 86.2%, 61.7%, and 38.1%, respectively. Patients with SD/PD at 1 month had a 12-month OS rate of 11.5%. The 12-month PFS/OS for the entire cohort was 43.3%/59.7%. Our results indicate that early FDG-PET response using Deauville criteria may predict the risk of CAR-T failure and be used to guide post–CAR-T management. Although patients achieving early DS1 to 2 remission showed excellent long-term outcomes, patients with DS3 to 4 response had a 31% risk of early relapse, and 46% for DS4 patients when excluding cases with RT-related activity. DS5 response was associated with dismal outcomes and should be regarded as treatment failure. Response-adapted trial designs of CAR-T in combination with immunomodulatory agents would be an attractive concept, stratified by the 1-month DS. DS1 to 2 patients should be spared additional treatment with potential toxicity, but DS3 to 4 patients with a 30% to 45% risk of early CAR-T failure might benefit from combinatorial approaches. Biomarkers of early response, such as circulating tumor DNA, might help to further delineate insufficient DS4 responses from post–CAR-T inflammation.[14] In contrast to DS4, all patients with DS5 at 1 month progressed by month 3. Classifying these patients as “responders” raises unrealistic expectations, and treatment decisions should not be deferred until formal confirmation of PD, particularly if the disease is amenable to RT. Baseline high-risk factors, including LDH and ECOG PS,[2,4,5,15] inform patient selection pre–CAR-T, but by the time patients have undergone treatment and have responded, an individual patient’s risk will have changed. On-treatment biomarkers, including imaging markers of response (eg, DS or disease metabolic volume kinetics[16]), should be incorporated into a dynamic, postinfusion risk model. Locke et al demonstrated durable responses in axi-cel–treated patients with higher peak CAR-T expansion relative to pretreatment tumor burden, and lower interleukin-6, CRP, and ferritin on the day of infusion.[4,17] In our analysis, the strong association of DS response and outcome was independent of preinfusion CRP, but inflammatory markers were not assessed at the 1-month time point. The difference in PFS by DS category was highly significant and well separated into 4 prognostic groups. The effect on OS was smaller, likely impacted by post–CAR-T treatments. In conclusion, our results indicate that early FDG-PET DS categories provide a standardized, broadly available tool to predict durable remission after CD19 CAR-T and could inform early post–CAR-T management and response-adapted stratification in clinical trials.
  14 in total

1.  Tisagenlecleucel in Adult Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

Authors:  Stephen J Schuster; Michael R Bishop; Constantine S Tam; Edmund K Waller; Peter Borchmann; Joseph P McGuirk; Ulrich Jäger; Samantha Jaglowski; Charalambos Andreadis; Jason R Westin; Isabelle Fleury; Veronika Bachanova; S Ronan Foley; P Joy Ho; Stephan Mielke; John M Magenau; Harald Holte; Serafino Pantano; Lida B Pacaud; Rakesh Awasthi; Jufen Chu; Özlem Anak; Gilles Salles; Richard T Maziarz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Axicabtagene Ciloleucel CAR T-Cell Therapy in Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

Authors:  Sattva S Neelapu; Frederick L Locke; Nancy L Bartlett; Lazaros J Lekakis; David B Miklos; Caron A Jacobson; Ira Braunschweig; Olalekan O Oluwole; Tanya Siddiqi; Yi Lin; John M Timmerman; Patrick J Stiff; Jonathan W Friedberg; Ian W Flinn; Andre Goy; Brian T Hill; Mitchell R Smith; Abhinav Deol; Umar Farooq; Peter McSweeney; Javier Munoz; Irit Avivi; Januario E Castro; Jason R Westin; Julio C Chavez; Armin Ghobadi; Krishna V Komanduri; Ronald Levy; Eric D Jacobsen; Thomas E Witzig; Patrick Reagan; Adrian Bot; John Rossi; Lynn Navale; Yizhou Jiang; Jeff Aycock; Meg Elias; David Chang; Jeff Wiezorek; William Y Go
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2017-12-10       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Predictive factors of early progression after CAR T-cell therapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Authors:  Laetitia Vercellino; Roberta Di Blasi; Salim Kanoun; Benoit Tessoulin; Cedric Rossi; Maud D'Aveni-Piney; Lucie Obéric; Caroline Bodet-Milin; Pierre Bories; Pierre Olivier; Ingrid Lafon; Alina Berriolo-Riedinger; Eugenio Galli; Sophie Bernard; Marie-Thérèse Rubio; Celine Bossard; Veronique Meignin; Pascal Merlet; Pierre Feugier; Steven Le Gouill; Loic Ysebaert; Olivier Casasnovas; Michel Meignan; Sylvie Chevret; Catherine Thieblemont
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2020-11-24

4.  Midtreatment 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography in aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Authors:  Pier Luigi Zinzani; Letizia Gandolfi; Alessandro Broccoli; Lisa Argnani; Stefano Fanti; Cinzia Pellegrini; Vittorio Stefoni; Enrico Derenzini; Federica Quirini; Michele Baccarani
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2010-10-19       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Authors:  N G Mikhaeel; M Hutchings; P A Fields; M J O'Doherty; A R Timothy
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2005-06-24       Impact factor: 32.976

6.  Axicabtagene Ciloleucel in the Non-Trial Setting: Outcomes and Correlates of Response, Resistance, and Toxicity.

Authors:  Caron A Jacobson; Bradley D Hunter; Robert Redd; Scott J Rodig; Pei-Hsuan Chen; Kyle Wright; Mikel Lipschitz; Jerome Ritz; Yusuke Kamihara; Philippe Armand; Sarah Nikiforow; Michael Rogalski; Joseph Maakaron; Samantha Jaglowski; Marcela V Maus; Yi-Bin Chen; Jeremy S Abramson; Justin Kline; Elizabeth Budde; Alex Herrera; Matthew Mei; Jonathon B Cohen; Stephen D Smith; David G Maloney; Ajay K Gopal; Matthew J Frigault; Utkarsh H Acharya
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 50.717

7.  Standard-of-Care Axicabtagene Ciloleucel for Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Results From the US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium.

Authors:  Loretta J Nastoupil; Michael D Jain; Lei Feng; Jay Y Spiegel; Armin Ghobadi; Yi Lin; Saurabh Dahiya; Matthew Lunning; Lazaros Lekakis; Patrick Reagan; Olalekan Oluwole; Joseph McGuirk; Abhinav Deol; Alison R Sehgal; Andre Goy; Brian T Hill; Khoan Vu; Charalambos Andreadis; Javier Munoz; Jason Westin; Julio C Chavez; Amanda Cashen; N Nora Bennani; Aaron P Rapoport; Julie M Vose; David B Miklos; Sattva S Neelapu; Frederick L Locke
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 50.717

8.  Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET in diffuse large cell lymphoma: results from the CALGB 50303 Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Heiko Schöder; Mei-Yin C Polley; Michael V Knopp; Nathan Hall; Lale Kostakoglu; Jun Zhang; Howard R Higley; Gary Kelloff; Heshan Liu; Andrew D Zelenetz; Bruce D Cheson; Nina Wagner-Johnston; Brad S Kahl; Jonathan W Friedberg; Eric D Hsi; John P Leonard; Lawrence H Schwartz; Wyndham H Wilson; Nancy L Bartlett
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 25.476

9.  Obinutuzumab vs rituximab for advanced DLBCL: a PET-guided and randomized phase 3 study by LYSA.

Authors:  Steven Le Gouill; Hervé Ghesquières; Lucie Oberic; Franck Morschhauser; Hervé Tilly; Vincent Ribrag; Thierry Lamy; Catherine Thieblemont; Hervé Maisonneuve; Rémy Gressin; Krimo Bouhabdallah; Corinne Haioun; Gandhi Damaj; Luc Fornecker; Réda Bouhabdallah; Pierre Feugier; David Sibon; Guillaume Cartron; Christophe Bonnet; Marc André; Loic Chartier; Philippe Ruminy; Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré; Caroline Bodet-Milin; Alina Berriolo-Riedinger; Josette Brière; Jean-Philippe Jais; Thierry Jo Molina; Emmanuel Itti; René-Olivier Casasnovas
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 22.113

10.  Monitoring of Circulating Tumor DNA Improves Early Relapse Detection After Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Infusion in Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Results of a Prospective Multi-Institutional Trial.

Authors:  Matthew J Frank; Nasheed M Hossain; Ali Bukhari; Erin Dean; Jay Y Spiegel; Gursharan K Claire; Ilan Kirsch; Allison P Jacob; Chelsea D Mullins; Lik Wee Lee; Katherine A Kong; Juliana Craig; Crystal L Mackall; Aaron P Rapoport; Michael D Jain; Saurabh Dahiya; Frederick L Locke; David B Miklos
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 50.717

View more
  5 in total

1.  Improved Clinical Workflow for Whole-Body Patlak Parametric Imaging Using Two Short Dynamic Acquisitions.

Authors:  Hui Wang; Ying Miao; Wenjing Yu; Gan Zhu; Tao Wu; Xuefeng Zhao; Guangjie Yuan; Biao Li; Huiqin Xu
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 5.738

2.  CAR-T Engager proteins optimize anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapies for lymphoma.

Authors:  Lihe Su; Lan Wu; Roy R Lobb; Paul D Rennert; Christine Ambrose
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 7.723

3.  Lymphoma tumor burden before chimeric antigen receptor T-Cell treatment: RECIL vs. Lugano vs. metabolic tumor assessment.

Authors:  Michael Winkelmann; Veit L Bücklein; Viktoria Blumenberg; Kai Rejeski; Michael Ruzicka; Marcus Unterrainer; Christian Schmidt; Franziska J Dekorsy; Peter Bartenstein; Jens Ricke; Michael von Bergwelt-Baildon; Marion Subklewe; Wolfgang G Kunz
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 4.  Metabolic Imaging in B-Cell Lymphomas during CAR-T Cell Therapy.

Authors:  Flavia Linguanti; Elisabetta Maria Abenavoli; Valentina Berti; Egesta Lopci
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-09-27       Impact factor: 6.575

5.  Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy: Imaging Response Criteria and Relation to Progression-free and Overall Survival.

Authors:  Michael Winkelmann; Kai Rejeski; Viktoria Blumenberg; Veit L Bücklein; Michael Ruzicka; Marcus Unterrainer; Christian Schmidt; Franziska J Dekorsy; Peter Bartenstein; Jens Ricke; Michael von Bergwelt-Baildon; Marion Subklewe; Wolfgang G Kunz
Journal:  Hemasphere       Date:  2022-09-27
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.