Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation negatively impacts survival after CAR T-cell therapy in lymphoma patients: Results from the CART-SIE study
Abstract
Abstract Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape of relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas. Despite its efficacy, it induces profound immune suppression, predisposing patients to opportunistic infections. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation is a known complication in immunocompromised individuals, yet its specific prognostic impact following CAR T-cell therapy in lymphoma remains insufficiently characterized. To investigate the role of CMV reactivation in this setting, we analyzed 1124 lymphoma patients treated with commercial CAR T-cell products and enrolled in the Italian prospective observational CART-SIE study (NCT06339255). All CMV reactivations within 3 months of CAR T infusion were taken into account as well as their association to treatment response, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cytokine release syndrome (CRS), and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), infections, immune effector cell-associated hematotoxicity (ICAHT) and use of immunosuppressive therapies. A 3-month landmark analysis was performed for OS and PFS. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify independent risk factors. Median follow-up was 16.5 months (95% CI: 13.2–17.8). CMV reactivation occurred in 122 patients (10.9%), while 1002 did not. Notably, no cases of CMV disease were recorded in the cohort. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between patients with and without CMV reactivation, including age >70 years (14.8% vs. 12.5%, p=0.472), male gender (66.4% vs. 63.3%, p=0.550), DLBCL diagnosis (64.8% vs. 63.3%, p=0.232), prior autologous transplant (30.6% vs. 29.4%, p=0.833), CAR-T product (axi-cel: 55.7% vs. 53.2%, p=0.340), median number of previous therapies (2 vs. 2, p=0.117) and refractory disease status at study entry (55.9% vs. 54.0%, p=0.207), respectively. Complete response (CR) rates at day +30 and +90 were similar in patients with vs. without CMV reactivation (55.3% vs. 56.3%, p=0.484 and 58.6% vs. 63.6%, p=0.410, respectively). However, in the 3-month landmark analysis, CMV reactivation was associated with significantly worse outcomes: 1-year OS was 70.0% in the CMV-positive group vs. 78.6% in the CMV-negative group, and 2-year OS was 52.4% vs. 67.1% (p=0.023). Similarly, 3-month landmark PFS were 61.9% vs. 71.2% at 1 year and 46.2% vs. 60.8% at 2 years (p=0.026), respectively. Rates of CRS (90.7% vs. 87.3%, p=0.305) and ICANS (33.1% vs. 26.2%, p=0.128) were comparable between patients with and without CMV reactivation. Severity grading of both CRS and ICANS also did not differ significantly (p=0.401 and p=0.321, respectively). Similarly, the incidence of infections (13.1% vs. 11.1%, p=0.544) and ICAHT (29.5% vs. 23.3%, p=0.144) did not differ significantly between patients with and without CMV reactivation, respectively. However, patients who experienced CMV reactivation more frequently received immunosuppressive treatments, including tocilizumab (79.5% vs. 70.7%, p=0.043), anakinra (12.3% vs. 6.7%, p=0.040), and corticosteroids (59.8% vs. 45.5%, p=0.003). In multivariate 3-month landmark analysis, after adjusting for age, gender, prior autologous transplant, number of prior treatment lines, bridging therapy, diagnosis, CAR-T product, and steroid use, CMV reactivation remained independently associated with inferior OS (HR 1.47, 95% CI: 1.03–2.11, p=0.034) and PFS (HR 1.46, 95% CI: 1.01–2.11, p=0.045).In conclusion, CMV reactivation is a relatively frequent early event following CAR T-cell therapy for lymphoma and is correlated with increased use of immunomodulatory agents. While it was not linked to differences in response rates, overt CMV disease, or an increased incidence of infectious or CAR T-related complications, CMV reactivation emerged as an independent predictor of inferior survival. These findings underscore the importance of active CMV surveillance and highlight the need for further studies investigating prophylactic or preemptive antiviral strategies to improve outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.
Article Details
Authors (33)
Nicola Polverelli
1Unit of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapies - Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
Annalisa Chiappella
6Department of Hematology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
Mauro Krampera
18Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, Section of Biomedicine of Innovation, Department of Engineering for Innovative Medicine (DIMI), University of Verona, Verona, Italy
Maurizio Musso
17Ospedale La Maddalena - Dipartimento Oncologico, Palermo, Italy
Alice Di Rocco
6Division of Hematology, Department of Translational and Precision Medicine, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Mirko Farina
Alessandro Rambaldi
5University of Milan and Azienda Socio Sanitaria territorial Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy, Department of Hematology-Oncology, Bergamo, Italy
Ilaria Cutini
4Department of Cellular Therapies and Transfusion Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
Mattia Novo
9Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital and University, Torino, Italy
Francesca Patriarca
18Università di Udine/Italy, Udine, Italy
Pier Luigi Zinzani
12IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Istituto di Ematologia “Seràgnoli,” Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Chirurgiche, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Fabio Ciceri
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan
Armando Santoro
IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Milan
Michele Clerico
14AOU “Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Torino, Italy
Maria Chiara Tisi
9Hematology Unit, San Bortolo Hospital, A.U. L. S. S. 8 “Berica”, Vicenza, Italy
Lucia Brunello
Alessia Castellino
20Division of Hematology - AO S. Croce e Carle, Cuneo and Laboratory of Blood Tumor Immunology, Molecular Biotechnology Center “Guido Tarone”, University of Torino, Cuneo, Italy
Patrizia Chiusolo
6Section of Hematology, Department of Radiological and Hematological Sciences, Catholic University, Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
Giovanni Grillo
17Dipartimento di Ematologia e Trapianto di midollo, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
Massimo Martino
12Stem Cell Transplant and Cellular Therapies Unit, Great Metropolitan Hospital “Bianchi-Melacrino-Morelli”, Reggio Calabria, Italy
Pellegrino Musto
17Unità di Ematologia e Trapianto di Midollo Osseo, AOUC Policlinico, Bari, Italy
Attilio Olivieri
37Ospedale Regionale delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Maria Grazia Benevento
1Unit of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapies - Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
Antonio Bianchessi
1Unit of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapies - Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
Irene Defrancesco
1Unit of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapies - Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
Giulia Losi
1Unit of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapies - Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
Caterina Zerbi
1Unit of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapies - Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
Elisa Roncoroni
13Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
Manuel Gotti
23Division of Hematology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
Alessia Taurino
1Unit of Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cellular Therapies - Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy
Anna Fedina
23Fondazione Italiana Linfomi, Modena, Italy
Paolo Corradini
8Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS, Haematology, Milan, Italy
Luca Arcaini
Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy