First-line salvage therapies in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma after second- or third-line CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapy
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: CD19-directed CAR T-cell (CAR-T) therapy is increasingly deployed in earlier lines of treatment for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (r/r LBCL), including 2nd and 3rd line settings. This shift raises important questions about post-CAR-T management, yet existing data largely reflect heavily pretreated patients, limiting relevance to current practice. In this evolving context, the clinical features, salvage strategies, and outcomes following relapse after early-line CAR-T remain poorly defined. Objective To determine the effectiveness of first-line salvage therapies and associated survival outcomes in patients with r/r LBCL relapsing after as2nd or 3rd line CAR-T therapy. Methods This international, multicenter retrospective cohort study included LBCL patients from five institutions, who received CAR-T therapy as 2nd or 3rd line therapy. Response was assessed per Lugano criteria. One-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the initiation of salvage therapy. Prognostic factors were evaluated using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. Results:Among 557 LBCL patients treated with 2nd line (31%) and 3rd line (69%) CAR-T, the 1-year OS and PFS was 76% (95% CI 73-80) and 54% (49-58), respectively; 18% were refractory to CAR-T therapy. Cumulative incidence (CI) of relapse/progression at 1-year post-CAR-T was 42% (37-46), with a median time to relapse of 2.9 months (IQR 1.2-6.0). Notably, the complete responses (CR) rates and relapse or progression CI were comparable between 2nd and 3rd line CAR-T (71% vs. 66% and 37% vs. 44%, respectively). Of 232 patients who relapsed or progressed following CAR-T, 182 (78%) received subsequent treatment. The median age of the treated cohort was 63 years (IQR 52-73); 52% had received axi-cel, 24% tisa-cel, 18% liso-cel, and 6% point of care CD19-CAR-T product. Most patients had received CAR-T as 3rd line therapy (72%), with the remainder treated in the 2nd line setting. Overall response rate (ORR) to post-CAR-T treatment was 49% (34% CR, 15% PR). With a median follow up of 22 months (IQR 8-40), 1-year OS from post-CAR-T treatment was 47% (95% CI 39-56) and PFS was 29% (22-38). In multivariable Cox regression adjusting for age, disease transformation, CAR-T product, and best response to CAR-T, the line of prior CAR-T therapy was not associated with OS (HR 1.29, 95% CI, 0.75–2.23) or PFS (HR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.61–1.47). One-year OS rates following salvage therapy was comparable between 2nd and 3rd line groups (44% vs. 48%, p=0.76), as was PFS (23% and 31%, p=0.66). Post-CAR-T treatments were heterogeneous, with the most common being involved-site radiation therapy (ISRT)- (n=39) followed by bispecifics- (n=37), bendamustine- (n=23), and polatuzumab- (n=21) containing regimens. Checkpoint inhibitors-containing regimens were administered to 14 patients. These categories were not mutually exclusive and therefore not directly comparable. Among patients treated with polatuzumab-containing regimens, 14% had prior exposure to the same agent; while bispecific-containing regimens had 27% previous exposure to polatuzumab, and 3% to bispecifics. Response rates to systemic treatments varied by regimen-containing group: polatuzumab- and checkpoints inhibitors-containing regimens demonstrated the highest ORR (57%), followed by bispecifics- containing regimens (56%). At 1-year from post-CAR-T treatments OS was approximately 50%, reaching the highest with checkpoint inhibitors- (70%), followed by bispecifics- (60%), and the lowest with anthracycline/platinum based chemotherapies-containing regimens (33%). However, lower PFS (around 30%) was observed, ranging from 51% with bispecifics-, followed by checkpoint inhibitors- (44%), to bendamustine-containing regimens (8%). Conclusions:This large, multicenter study is among the first to evaluate first-line salvage therapies in patients with LBCL relapsing after 2nd or 3rd line CD19 CAR-T. Salvage treatments yielded meaningful responses and survival, regardless of CAR-T therapy line. Immunotherapy-based regimens demonstrated encouraging activity, though longer follow-up is needed to confirm durability of response and survival benefit. These findings may guide future post–CAR-T treatment considerations and support further exploration of immunotherapy-based approaches in this high-risk population.
Article Details
Authors (28)
Silvia Escribano Serrat
1Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Adult Bone Marrow Transplant Service, Department of Medicine, New York, United States
Andrew Ip
14Division of Oncology, John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ
Jaime Sanz
2Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Valencia Departament de Medicina Universitat de Valencia, CIBERONC, Instituto Carlos III, Madrid, Spain, Hematology Department, Valencia, Spain
Marina Gomez-Llobell
1Adult Bone Marrow Transplantation Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Sigrun Einarsdottir
1Adult Bone Marrow Transplantation Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Ronit Marcus
3Division of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Ramat Gan, Israel
Ori Ben Valid
3Division of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Ramat Gan, Israel
Noa Golan Accav
3Division of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Ramat Gan, Israel
Yara Abu Ahmad
8Rambam Health Care Campus, Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Haifa, Israel
Shimrit Harlev
8Rambam Health Care Campus, Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Haifa, Israel
Uri Greenbaum
8Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Andre Goy
14Division of Oncology, John Theurer Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ
Teng Fei
College of Life and Health Sciences, Northeastern University
Mika Geva
10Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Lymphoma Service, Department of Medicine, New York, United States
Gilles Salles
41Lymphoma Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Michael Scordo
Cellular Therapy Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
Lia Palomba
1memorial Sloan Kettering, NYC, United States
Jennifer Lue
1memorial Sloan Kettering, NYC, United States
Jae Park
1Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Medicine, New York, United States
Heiko Schoder
1memorial Sloan Kettering, NYC, United States
Craig Sauter
1Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Adult Bone Marrow Transplant Service, Department of Medicine, New York, United States
Burcin Agridag Ucpinar
12Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Department of Radiology, New York, United States
Gunjan Shah
2Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Cellular Therapy Service, Department of Medicine, New York, United States
Kai Rejeski
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
Ofrat Beyar-Katz
5Department of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel
Abraham Avigdor
3Division of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel HaShomer, Ramat Gan, Israel
Miguel-Angel Perales
1Adult Bone Marrow Transplant Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
Roni Shouval
1Adult Bone Marrow Transplantation Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY