C. Phillips, Christa Krupski, Ruby Khoury, C. Dandoy, A. Nelson, Thomas J. Galletta, Angela Faulhaber, S. Davies, Jeremy D. Rubinstein
{"title":"CAR - t细胞治疗后hsct患者的预后和管理:单中心经验","authors":"C. Phillips, Christa Krupski, Ruby Khoury, C. Dandoy, A. Nelson, Thomas J. Galletta, Angela Faulhaber, S. Davies, Jeremy D. Rubinstein","doi":"10.3389/frhem.2023.1151744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is increasingly being used in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)-naive patients. Outcomes for HSCT patients following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy demonstrate low relapse rates; however, a significant number of patients who receive tisa-cel can maintain remission without an HSCT. Multiple factors are considered when choosing whether or not to proceed with HSCT. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 31 patients who had received tisa-cel at our institution and who were transplant naive at the time of infusion. The aim was to determine the rate and timing of consolidative HSCT, factors that led to HSCT, and overall survival. Results Three of the 31 patients were non-responders to tisa-cel and ultimately died of disease. Twelve of the 28 responders remain alive with no evidence of disease (NED) without subsequent therapy. Of these patients, 5 of the 12 had isolated extramedullary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (CNS, n = 4; testes, n = 1) and 2 of the 12 had Down syndrome, so no transplantation was planned. In the remaining 5 of 12 patients, close monitoring for signs of relapsed ALL, using serial next-generation sequencing (NGS) minimal residual disease (MRD) and lymphocyte subpopulation measurements, was performed. Owing to continued negative findings, no HSCT was chosen. Ultimately, 43% (12 of 28) of responders proceeded to HSCT, with three receiving tisa-cel as a planned bridge to HSCT as a result of CD22 negativity and/or provider preference (two patients survived with NED); three proceeded to HSCT as a result of early loss of B-cell aplasia (BCA) (all survived with NED); and six had salvage HSCT following relapse (three patients survived with NED and one patient was alive in relapse). Three of the 28 patients died following relapse post CAR T-cell therapy without HSCT. The final patient had an isolated extramedullary soft tissue CD19+ relapse 1 year post tisa-cel treatment, and is now NED without HSCT and persistent BCA. Conclusion Close monitoring of NGS results and BCA, as well as consideration of the site of the disease, can spare a subset of patients HSCT with the maintenance of leukemia-free remission, while still allowing for later HSCT in others. In our cohort, only a small subset of patients was unable to proceed to HSCT following relapse post-CAR T-cell therapy.","PeriodicalId":101407,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in hematology","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post CAR T-cell therapy outcomes and management in HSCT-naive patients: a single-center experience\",\"authors\":\"C. Phillips, Christa Krupski, Ruby Khoury, C. Dandoy, A. Nelson, Thomas J. Galletta, Angela Faulhaber, S. Davies, Jeremy D. Rubinstein\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frhem.2023.1151744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is increasingly being used in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)-naive patients. Outcomes for HSCT patients following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy demonstrate low relapse rates; however, a significant number of patients who receive tisa-cel can maintain remission without an HSCT. Multiple factors are considered when choosing whether or not to proceed with HSCT. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 31 patients who had received tisa-cel at our institution and who were transplant naive at the time of infusion. The aim was to determine the rate and timing of consolidative HSCT, factors that led to HSCT, and overall survival. Results Three of the 31 patients were non-responders to tisa-cel and ultimately died of disease. Twelve of the 28 responders remain alive with no evidence of disease (NED) without subsequent therapy. Of these patients, 5 of the 12 had isolated extramedullary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (CNS, n = 4; testes, n = 1) and 2 of the 12 had Down syndrome, so no transplantation was planned. In the remaining 5 of 12 patients, close monitoring for signs of relapsed ALL, using serial next-generation sequencing (NGS) minimal residual disease (MRD) and lymphocyte subpopulation measurements, was performed. Owing to continued negative findings, no HSCT was chosen. Ultimately, 43% (12 of 28) of responders proceeded to HSCT, with three receiving tisa-cel as a planned bridge to HSCT as a result of CD22 negativity and/or provider preference (two patients survived with NED); three proceeded to HSCT as a result of early loss of B-cell aplasia (BCA) (all survived with NED); and six had salvage HSCT following relapse (three patients survived with NED and one patient was alive in relapse). Three of the 28 patients died following relapse post CAR T-cell therapy without HSCT. The final patient had an isolated extramedullary soft tissue CD19+ relapse 1 year post tisa-cel treatment, and is now NED without HSCT and persistent BCA. Conclusion Close monitoring of NGS results and BCA, as well as consideration of the site of the disease, can spare a subset of patients HSCT with the maintenance of leukemia-free remission, while still allowing for later HSCT in others. In our cohort, only a small subset of patients was unable to proceed to HSCT following relapse post-CAR T-cell therapy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":101407,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in hematology\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in hematology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhem.2023.1151744\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in hematology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhem.2023.1151744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Tisagenlecleucel(组织细胞)越来越多地用于造血干细胞移植(HSCT)初治患者。嵌合抗原受体(CAR) t细胞治疗后的HSCT患者复发率低;然而,相当一部分接受组织细胞移植的患者在不接受造血干细胞移植的情况下也能维持缓解。在选择是否进行HSCT时,要考虑多种因素。方法回顾性分析31例在本院接受组织细胞移植并在输注时进行移植的患者。目的是确定巩固性HSCT的发生率和时间,导致HSCT的因素和总生存率。结果31例患者中有3例对组织细胞治疗无反应,最终死于疾病。在没有后续治疗的情况下,28例应答者中有12例存活且无疾病迹象(NED)。在这些患者中,12例中有5例患有分离性髓外急性淋巴细胞白血病(ALL) (CNS, n = 4;12例患者中有2例患有唐氏综合症,因此没有移植计划。在12例患者中的其余5例中,使用串行下一代测序(NGS)最小残留病(MRD)和淋巴细胞亚群测量密切监测复发性ALL的迹象。由于持续的阴性结果,没有选择HSCT。最终,43%(28人中有12人)的应答者进行了HSCT治疗,其中3人接受了组织细胞治疗,因为CD22阴性和/或提供者偏好(2例患者存活于NED);3例由于早期b细胞发育不全(BCA)的丧失而进行了HSCT(所有患者都存活于NED);6例患者复发后进行了补救性HSCT(3例患者因NED存活,1例患者复发后存活)。28例患者中有3例在CAR - t细胞治疗后复发死亡。最后一位患者在组织细胞治疗1年后出现了孤立的髓外软组织CD19+复发,现在是NED,没有HSCT和持续性BCA。结论:密切监测NGS结果和BCA,并考虑疾病的部位,可以避免一部分患者进行HSCT,维持无白血病缓解,同时仍然允许其他患者进行后续HSCT。在我们的队列中,只有一小部分患者在car - t细胞治疗后复发后无法进行HSCT。
Post CAR T-cell therapy outcomes and management in HSCT-naive patients: a single-center experience
Background Tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) is increasingly being used in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT)-naive patients. Outcomes for HSCT patients following chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy demonstrate low relapse rates; however, a significant number of patients who receive tisa-cel can maintain remission without an HSCT. Multiple factors are considered when choosing whether or not to proceed with HSCT. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 31 patients who had received tisa-cel at our institution and who were transplant naive at the time of infusion. The aim was to determine the rate and timing of consolidative HSCT, factors that led to HSCT, and overall survival. Results Three of the 31 patients were non-responders to tisa-cel and ultimately died of disease. Twelve of the 28 responders remain alive with no evidence of disease (NED) without subsequent therapy. Of these patients, 5 of the 12 had isolated extramedullary acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (CNS, n = 4; testes, n = 1) and 2 of the 12 had Down syndrome, so no transplantation was planned. In the remaining 5 of 12 patients, close monitoring for signs of relapsed ALL, using serial next-generation sequencing (NGS) minimal residual disease (MRD) and lymphocyte subpopulation measurements, was performed. Owing to continued negative findings, no HSCT was chosen. Ultimately, 43% (12 of 28) of responders proceeded to HSCT, with three receiving tisa-cel as a planned bridge to HSCT as a result of CD22 negativity and/or provider preference (two patients survived with NED); three proceeded to HSCT as a result of early loss of B-cell aplasia (BCA) (all survived with NED); and six had salvage HSCT following relapse (three patients survived with NED and one patient was alive in relapse). Three of the 28 patients died following relapse post CAR T-cell therapy without HSCT. The final patient had an isolated extramedullary soft tissue CD19+ relapse 1 year post tisa-cel treatment, and is now NED without HSCT and persistent BCA. Conclusion Close monitoring of NGS results and BCA, as well as consideration of the site of the disease, can spare a subset of patients HSCT with the maintenance of leukemia-free remission, while still allowing for later HSCT in others. In our cohort, only a small subset of patients was unable to proceed to HSCT following relapse post-CAR T-cell therapy.