Akademska digitalna zbirka SLovenije - logo
E-viri
Celotno besedilo
Recenzirano
  • Lisocabtagene maraleucel (l...
    Kamdar, Manali Kirtikumar; Solomon, Scott R.; Arnason, Jon; Johnston, Patrick B.; Glaß, Bertram; Bachanova, Veronika; Ibrahimi, Sami; Mielke, Stephan; Mutsaers, Pim; Hernandez-Ilizaliturri, Francisco J.; Izutsu, Koji; Morschhauser, Franck; Lunning, Matthew Alexander; Chow, Victor A.; Santamaria, Josu; Colicino, Silvia; Ogasawara, Ken; Stepan, Lara; Abramson, Jeremy S.

    Journal of clinical oncology, 06/2024, Letnik: 42, Številka: 16_suppl
    Journal Article

    7013 Background: Liso-cel is an autologous, CD19-directed, 4-1BB CAR T cell product. In prespecified interim and primary analyses of TRANSFORM (NCT03575351), liso-cel showed significant improvements in efficacy vs SOC in pts with R/R LBCL. Here we report results after ~3-y FU. Methods: TRANSFORM is a randomized phase 3 study comparing liso-cel vs SOC (CT R-DHAP, R-ICE, or R-GDP then high-dose CT HDCT + ASCT) in adults aged ≤ 75 y with LBCL primary refractory to or relapsed ≤ 12 mo after first-line therapy and eligible for ASCT. Liso-cel arm pts underwent lymphodepletion followed by liso-cel (100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells). Bridging therapy was allowed. SOC arm pts received 3 cycles of CT; responding pts proceeded to HDCT + ASCT. Crossover to receive liso-cel was allowed for SOC arm pts if criteria were met. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS) per independent review committee (IRC). Key secondary endpoints included CR rate and PFS per IRC, and OS. Endpoints were not statistically retested and are reported descriptively. Results: In total, 184 pts were randomized (92 per arm); baseline characteristics were reported (Abramson et al. Blood 2023). Median (range) FU was 33.9 mo (0.9–53.0). Median EFS, PFS, and duration of response (DOR) were longer for liso-cel vs SOC, similar to the primary analysis (Table). A total of 61 (66%) SOC arm pts crossed over to receive liso-cel. Median OS was not reached (NR) in either arm; 36-mo OS rates were numerically higher for liso-cel. Of 76 total deaths (liso-cel, n = 34; SOC, n = 42 crossover pts, n = 33), 10 occurred since the primary analysis (liso-cel, n = 6; SOC, n = 4 all crossover pts); most were due to disease progression or complications (n = 6). Safety results were consistent with the primary analysis. Cellular kinetics and B-cell aplasia will be presented. Conclusions: After median FU of 33.9 mo, liso-cel as 2L treatment in pts with primary refractory or early relapsed LBCL resulted in deepening of response and continued improvement in efficacy endpoints over SOC, confirming the ongoing benefit of liso-cel. Clinical trial information: NCT03575351 . Table: see text