Outpatient (OP) use of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in patients (Pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL): Real-world data from the CIBMTR registry

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: Liso-cel, an autologous, CD19-directed CAR T cell product, has demonstrated consistent efficacy in a broad population of pts with B-cell malignancies, including R/R LBCL. Its well-established safety profile has made OP delivery commonplace. This, combined with recent changes to postinfusion monitoring requirements, offers pts the potential for greater access to care. Here, we describe real-world safety and effectiveness outcomes for pts with R/R LBCL who received liso-cel as standard of care (SOC) therapy in the inpatient (IP) or OP setting. Methods: This was an observational study of pts in the US with R/R LBCL who received commercial liso-cel as second-line (2L) or later treatment (tx) in the IP or OP setting between 02/2021 and 02/2025 and had ≥1 postinfusion assessment reported in the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). Safety outcomes included rates of AEs of special interest and nonrelapse mortality (NRM). Postinfusion hospitalizations in the OP group were also assessed. Effectiveness outcomes included ORR, CR rate, duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. All results are reported descriptively. Results: Of 1116 eligible pts, 34% (n=375) were intended for OP tx, as reported to the CIBMTR, including 82 of 195 (42%) pts who received liso-cel as 2L tx. Among pts treated in the IP vs OP setting, median (range) age was 71.5 y (21.5–91.2) and 69.8 y (25.0–86.1), respectively, and most pts were male (59% and 61%). Proportions of pts with high-grade B-cell lymphoma (16% and 12%), ≥2 extranodal involvement sites (26% and 26%), and secondary CNS involvement (5% and 4%) were similar for the IP and OP groups, respectively. In contrast, 48% vs 37% of pts in the IP vs OP groups, respectively, had elevated LDH before infusion and 10% vs 3% had ECOG PS ≥2. One or more comorbidities were reported for 72% and 65% (including cardiac, 36% and 32%; pulmonary, 30% and 26%; active infections requiring ongoing tx, 6% and 3%) of pts in the IP and OP groups, respectively. Median (range) number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (1–13) in the IP group and 3 (1–16) in the OP group. Use of bridging therapy was reported in 65% of the IP group and 62% of the OP group. Median (95% CI) follow-up for this study was 12.7 mo (12.5–13) in the IP group and 12.6 mo (12.4–12.8) in the OP group. Safety was similar in both settings; any-grade CRS was reported in 52% of IP vs 49% of OP setting pts, with low rates of grade 2 CRS (15% vs 11%) and grade ≥3 CRS (3% vs 2%) in both groups. Any-grade immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) rates were also similar in pts in the IP vs OP setting (28% vs 23%), with low rates of grade 2 ICANS (5% vs 4%) and grade ≥3 ICANS (10% vs 8%). Prolonged cytopenia (grade 4 thrombocytopenia and/or neutropenia at 30 d after infusion) was reported in 12% and 14% in the IP and OP groups; clinically significant infections at any time after infusion occurred in 48% of IP and 42% of OP setting pts. In the IP and OP groups, 37% and 30% of pts died, most commonly due to PD (25% and 21%) and the NRM rates at 12 mo were 7.1 (95% CI, 5.2–9.4) and 4.1 (95% CI, 2.2–6.8). Among OP setting pts, 46% were not hospitalized after infusion; of those hospitalized after OP infusion, median (IQR) time to hospitalization was 5 d (3-8) and duration of stay was 5 d (3-9). Response rates were high in both the IP (ORR, 80% [95% CI, 77–83]; CR rate, 70% [95% CI, 66–73]) and OP setting (ORR, 83% [95% CI, 79–87]; CR rate, 74% [95% CI, 69–79]). At ~12 mo follow-up, median (95% CI) DOR was not reached (NR; NR–NR) in either group with 12-mo DOR rates of 59% (95% CI, 54–63) and 63% (95% CI, 56–69), respectively. Median (95% CI) PFS was 11.8 mo (8.8–NR) in the IP group vs NR (NR–NR) in the OP group, with 12-mo PFS rates of 49% (95% CI, 45–53) and 56% (95% CI, 50–61), respectively. Median (95% CI) OS was NR (NR–NR) in both groups with 12-mo OS rates of 65% (95% CI, 61–68) in the IP group and 74% (95% CI, 68–78) in the OP group. Conclusions: These results continue to demonstrate that one-time tx with liso-cel results in deep, clinically meaningful efficacy in the SOC setting across a broad population of pts with R/R LBCL. Despite the few differences reported in baseline characteristics, outcomes were consistent among pts treated in the IP and OP care settings. The well-established safety profile of liso-cel is conducive to OP tx, allowing ~50% of pts to remain out of the hospital postinfusion.